Partly allowed

Sri Ramalaya Committee,Malakcharla,registered society v. The District Panchayat Officer, West Godavari District

Telangana HC23 Sept 2014WP/19045/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of a writ petition challenging a Gram Panchayat resolution that restricted temple activities for tuitions. The Court held the resolution illegal and ordered that the room with idols must not be locked, preserving religious freedoms under Constitutional Articles 25 and 26.

What did the court decide?

The resolution dated 8.9.2006 passed by the 4th Respondent is declared illegal and arbitrary; Respondents shall not lock the idol room or interfere with religious activities.

Sri Ramalaya Committee,Malakcharla,re… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

W.P.No.19045 of 2006

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition challenges the proceedings Rc.No.A1/63/06 dated 30.8.2006 issued by the 2^nd respondent-Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Denduluru Mandal, West Godavari District and the consequential resolution dated 8.9.2006 passed by the 4^th respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, irregular, violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

¶5

2. The pleaded case of the petitioner herein is as under: The deponent is the President of the petitioner society. A temple of Lord Sri Rama is situated in the midst of Malakacharla village since time immemorial and the villagers have been offering prayers and worshipping Lord Brahma in the said temple from generations together. Since the temple being in damaged condition, during the year 1997-98 the villagers of Malakacharla made a request to the then Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) to arrange for repairs with Assembly constituency funds and the said request was acceded to and the then MLA had given a sum of Rs.50,000/- and with the said funds, repairs were undertaken and the temple was renovated. The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) took the said temple in adoption and from 29.7.2006 to 31.7.2006 TTD conducted religious discourses in the temple. The present MLA, in order to cause destruction to the temple activities, made a report to the 1^st respondent-District Panchayat Officer saying that the temple is a community hall and the same would be required for undertaking private tuitions to his grand children. With the pressure exerted, the 2^nd respondent-Mandal Parishad Development Officer passed an order vide proceedings Rc.No.A1/63/06 dated 30.8.2006, directing that the front portion of the temple should be used

¶6

for public activities treating the same as community hall and the portion where the Deities are existing can be used for worshipping. The 2^nd respondent issued the directions to the 3^rd respondent-Gram Panchayat for implementation of the said orders and taking advantage of the said orders, the 4^th respondent-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat got a resolution passed on 8.9.2006 to the effect that the front portion of the temple would be given for undertaking private tuitions between 6.30 and 8 p.m. everyday and it was further directed that there should not be any activities at that time and a copy of the same was communicated to the MLA also, who was the man behind the impugned order. The 3^rd respondent came to the temple on 11.9.2006 and demanded the petitioner to deliver the keys of the temple and then only the petitioner came to know about the above episode and despite the request made by the petitioner, the respondents did not drop the said orders. Pleading in the manner indicated supra, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶7

3. This Court, granted stay of further proceedings pursuant to the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent in Rc.No.A1/63/06 dated 30.8.2006 and later the said interim order was extended until further orders.

¶8

4. Responding to the rule nisi issued by this Court, a counter affidavit deposed by the 2^nd respondent has been filed on his behalf and on behalf of 1^st respondent, denying the averments made in the writ affidavit and in the direction of justifying the impugned order.

¶9

5. A counter affidavit is also filed on behalf of 3^rd respondent saying that the subject building is located in Grama Kantam land known as Village Chavidi from the time immemorial and the same does not belong to the petitioner society and it is under the control of Gram Panchayat. It is further stated in the said counter that due to rivalry between the petitioner and their relatives, a dispute had arisen, as such the matter was placed before the Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat

¶10

passed a resolution dated 8.9.2006, resolving to allow the villagers to perform poojas and also to conduct tuitions between 6.30 and 8.00 p.m. in the village Chavdi.

¶11

6. One K.Dharma Rao, against whom allegations have been made in the writ affidavit filed W.P.M.P.No.25852 of 2006 and this Court by virtue of order dated 29.9.2006 ordered impleadment of the said person as 5^th respondent and a vacate stay application being W.V.M.P.No.1856 of 2006, supported by an affidavit is filed stating that the subject premises is a community hall, which exclusively belongs to Gram Panchayat and is meant for public use and the said building was never treated as temple and there is absolutely no material placed before this Court to show that the subject premises is a temple or meant for religious purposes of a particular religion and for generations together, the said premises is used as a community hall. In the said affidavit, it is further stated that till 1980’s, there was a School namely Sri Rama Hindu Aided Elementary School, imparting classes for 1 to 5 with a strength of about 40 to 50 students. It is further stated that for the last three years one Kali Subba Rao was kind enough to undertake tuitions in the said premises free of cost and the said activity is continued, contributing valuable service to improve the literacy in the village and the same cannot be counted in terms of money. It is further stated that the effort of the petitioner herein is to spoil the education of the children for their wrongful gains for the purpose of grabbing the property under the guise of temple and religion. It is further stated that the 5^th respondent is ready for appointment of Commissioner to note down the physical features of the subject premises.

¶12

7. Heard Sri Satyanarayana Nimmagadda, learned counsel for petitioner, learned G.P. for Panchayat Raj for Respondent No.1 and Sri M.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, apart from perusing the material available on record.

¶13

8. The genesis for the entire episode in the present writ petition is the order passed by the 2^nd respondent on 30.8.2006, wherein the 2^nd respondent requested the Panchayat Secretary to see that there would be no obstruction for using a part of the building for spiritual activities for Sri Ramalayam and the rest for using the community activities. The said order also refers to a report of the Extension Officer, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department dated 26.8.2006 on the complaint of the 5^th respondent and other villagers. As a consequence of the above said order of the 2^nd respondent dated 30.8.2006, the 3^rd respondent Gram Panchayat passed a resolution dated 8.9.2006, resolving to implement the said order and further resolved to permit tuitions from 6.30 to 8.00 p.m. for villagers and to lock the doors of the room during that period where the idols are lying. A perusal of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat manifestly shows that the Gram Panchayat travelled beyond the scope of the impugned order dated 30.8.2006. Having earmarked a part of the premises for worshipping the idols, there is absolutely no justification on the part of the Respondent-Gram Panchayat in directing closure of the room between 6.30 and 8.00 p.m., which is a crucial time for devotees. This unreasonable and iniquitous attitude of the Gram Panchayat deserves to be deprecated. Having permitted a part of the building to be used for spiritual activities, it is highly improper on the part of the Gram Panchayat to order for locking the room where idols are situated. In the considered opinion of this Court, this attitude on the part of Respondent-Gram Panchayat is not in the direction of maintaining tranquillity and congenial atmosphere in the village. The public authorities, while dealing with the delicate religious sentiments of the people, are required to keep in mind the provisions of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, the petitioner cannot complain against the Gram Panchayat for using other part of the building for public purpose.

¶14

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of,

¶15

declaring the resolution dated 8.9.2006 passed by the 4^th respondent-Gram Panchayat as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Chapter III of the Constitution of India and the Respondents herein shall not put locks to the portion of the subject building where the idols are situated and shall not to interfere with the religious activities of the villagers. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

______________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶17

Date: .9.2014 DA

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶19

W.P.No.19045 of 2006

¶20

.9.2014

¶21

¶22