Allowed

Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple and Sri Malleswara Swamy v. The Commissioner, Government of a.P., Endowments

Telangana HC28 Jun 2013WP/19578/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging a suspension order issued against a temple trustee. The court held that the suspension was a colourable exercise of power due to lack of procedural compliance with Section 28(2) and was motivated by the petitioner's opposition to land acquisition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed setting aside the suspension order dated 26.09.2000.

Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple and Sri Malleswara Swamy… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.19578 OF 2000

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the action of the 2^nd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.B1/3853/2000 Adm, Dated 26.09.2000 suspending the petitioner-Trustee in the matter of acquisition of temple lands for establishment of Autonagar, in an extent of Ac.41.69 cts belonging to Sri Malleswara Swamy Temple and Sri Venkateswara Swamy temple of Bappudi Village, Chilakaluripet Mandal, Guntur District.

¶4

2. The Brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶5

The petitioner is the founder trustee to Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Sri Chennakeshava Swamy Temple and Sri Malleshwara Swamy Temple, Boppudi Village, Chilakaluripet Mandal, Guntur District. The fore fathers of the petitioner constructed these temples long back and endowed some of their agricultural lands for the said temples along with regular income. The total extent of agricultural lands of Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple and Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple is Ac.41.69 cents in Survey Nos.166, 457, 479/A and 479/C of Boppudi Village. Out of this Ac.41.69 cents, Ac.15.00 of land was given to the Archakas for their services to the said temple.

¶6

3. It appears that there was a proposal to alienate the temple lands for establishing autonagar. The petitioner made a representation on 03.06.2000 to the 2^nd respondent to withdraw the said proposal. By the impugned proceedings dated 26.09.2000, the charges have been framed against the petitioner and he gave an explanation to the charges are as follows:

¶7

CHARGES AND EXPLANATIONS

¶8

1. That he is residing elsewhere at Hyderabad, leaving the administration of the temples to their fate.

¶9

Explanation: This charge is baseless, sir I had not left the administration of temples to their fate, instead of that, I am improving the temples in all aspects this is the reason all devotees in my village are happy about my performance as the trustee, I am residing in Boppudy Village and due to my personal reasons I am frequently visiting Hyderabad.

¶10

2. That he failed to improve the financial position of the temples by allowing the tenants on the low makthas.

¶11

Explanation: This charge is baseless, Sir, in the year of 1999- 2000 the makthas were enhanced from Rs.640-00 per Acre to Rs.1000-00 Per acre (at an average of 56.25% hike compared to the general 30%)

¶12

3. That he failed to submit the Budget Estimate for the year 2000-2001 so far through it is actually due before 90 days of the next financial year as per section 57 of the Act 30/87.

¶13

Explanation: This charge is baseless, Sir, I have enough time upto Dec 31^st 2000 to submit the budget estimates for the year 2000-2001. I am ready to submit the budge estimates as soon as you remove the suspension.

¶14

4. That he failed to submit the income return for the year 1999-2000 though the financial year has closed by the end of March 2000.

¶15

Explanation: This charge is baseless, Sir, I already given the statements to the Inspector Endowments Dept but not taken any receipt. I am ready to submit the statements as soon as you remove the suspension.

¶16

5. That he failed to pay the contribution and Audit fee due to the department for the year 2000-2001.

¶17

Explanation: This charge is baseless, Sir, I already paid all arrears only need to pay the contribution for the year 2000 – 2001 for which I had time up to 31^st March, 2001. I am ready to pay that also in the month of March, 2001.

¶18

6. That he failed to get the accounts audited upto date and submit replies for the pending audit objections so far.

¶19

Explanation: This charge is baseless, Sir, The accounts of Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple was audited on 13.09.2000 and the accounts of Sri Malleswara Swamy Temple was audited on 15.09.2000. I am informing the authorities One point in respect of Audit replies 1) Not only trustees No E.O. of any temple in Guntur Dt was ever submitted audit replies to my best of knowledge.

¶20

7. That though he has promised the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur on 18.09.2000 to meet him in the office at Guntur on 19.09.2000 but failed to keep up his promise so far.

¶21

Explanation: This charge is baseless, Sir, I met you (The Asst Commissioner Endowments Dept. Guntur) on 19.09.2000 as per his telegram in Chilakaluripet and explained the reasons why the sale of temple lands is against the interests of the temples but I had not promised any thing on 18.09.2000.

¶22

8. That he has shown scant disregard to the lawful instructions of the superiors. Explanation: This charge is baseless, Sir, I had not received any lawful instructions by my authorities so far, so the question of scant disregard of lawful instructions will not arise. Even now I am ready to obey the lawful orders of my superiors after the removal of my suspension.

¶23

9. That on account of non availability of the Founder trustee at Boppudy Village,

¶24

the notice sent by the Inspector, Endowments Department, Narasaraopet in Rc.No.240/2000, dt.24.09.2000 through his attender could not be served on

¶25

him and hence returned back.

¶26

Explanation: This charge is baseless, Sir, I am thankful to the Inspector of Endowments Dept Narasraopet for working even on Sundays, but to my best of knowledge no attender of Inspector Endowments Dept came to me in my village on that day.

¶27

10. That on account of the inconvenience caused by him, the undersigned could not submit a report to the Commissioner, Endowments Department, and Guntur as called for in the matter of alienation of land of the above temples. Explanation: This charge is baseless, Sir, The trustee need not give the consent for the alienation of lands when it is particularly against the interests of the temples. I am again submitting the details why the proposals are against the interests of the temples. From the beginning I am saying the same thing that the sale of lands is against the interests of the temples, auto workers and also to Nation. This fact may be causing inconvenience to you under the pressure from MLA, Minister of Endowments. The District Collector, Guntur, local revenue Officials, and MLA associates.

¶28

4. The petitioner was kept under suspension by orders dated 26.09.2000 of the 2^nd respondent in which charges have been framed against him i.e., before the petitioner could submit his explanation.

¶29

5. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.10.2000. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner has opposed the proposal of alienating the temple lands for establishment of autonagar, he was suspended. He further submitted that the suspension order is illegal as no opportunity was given to him to submit his explanation. The Learned Counsel for petitioner also submitted that, under Sub section (2) of Section 28 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”) – the petitioner should have been given an opportunity, and orders of suspension shall state every charge framed against trustee, his explanation and the finding of such charge, together with the reasons therefor.

¶30

6. On the otherhand the learned standing counsel for Endowments appearing for 3^rd respondent submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner can show that he failed to get the

¶31

accounts audited upto date, that he was not residing in the village and that in view of the charges levelled against him, the authorities may be given an opportunity to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner and be permitted to proceed with the enquiry.

¶32

7. The only point that arise for consideration is whether the suspension order has been passed on any reasonable grounds and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner or can be treated as colourable exercise of powers.

¶33

8. The authorities have to act fairly. They are expected to follow the procedure and no orders should be passed at the whims and fancies of the officers or in colourable exercise of their authority.

¶34

9. As can be seen from the record and even from the suspension order, it is clear that the authorities did not tolerate the attitude of the petitioner in opposing the proposal of alienation of lands. The very subject matter of the suspension order was in the matter of acquisition of temple lands of Ac.49.16 cents.

¶35

10. Even the 1^st para of the suspension order refers to the representation made by the local MLAs, Chilakaluripet and proposals with regard to the establishment of autonagar. It is most unfortunate that disciplinary proceedings were initiated because the petitioner did not yield to the pressure of higher authorities.

¶36

11. As seen from the charges levelled against the petitioner, and also the explanation submitted by the petitioner, it appears that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is reasonable and the authorities some how tried to level unnecessary trivial charges against the petitioner to suspend him. More over, Sub section (2) of Section 28 of the Act seems to be ignored by the authorities and the impugned proceedings appears to be contrary to Sub section (2) of Section 28 of the Act. Admittedly, the petitioner had not been given an opportunity to submit his explanation before issuing the impugned proceedings

¶37

and there is violation of Sub-section 2 of Section 28. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that charges were levelled nearly 13 years ago, I am of the view that there is no justification in allowing the authorities to conduct any further enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner.

¶38

12. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for setting aside the suspension order. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed.

¶39

__________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J

¶40

28^th June, 2013 knl

Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple and Sri Malleswara Swamy v. The Commissioner, Government of a.P., Endowments

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple and Sri Malleswara Swamy v. The Commissioner, Government of a.P., Endowments

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Anitha Rani Vs B.Prasad Rao

K. Saradamba Vs Sri Venkateswara University

G. Anitha Rani Vs The Vice Chairman and Managing Director

A.a.Koteswara Rao, Vs The Superintending Engineer

Mandati Jalapathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Mohan Reddy, Vs K.Shiva Jyothy