Disposed

Sunkara Rama Krishna Rao, v. The Executive officer-cum-Manager

Telangana HC8 Oct 2014WP/21404/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging inaction and denial of participation in temple functions, the Court directed the Assistant Commissioner to transmit the matter to the Endowments Tribunal for adjudication under Section 87(h) of the Act, while continuing an interim order allowing the petitioner to participate.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments to transmit the matter to the Endowments Tribunal for adjudication under Section 87(h) of the Act.

Sunkara Rama Krishna Rao, Vs The Executive… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI

¶2

W.P.No.21404 of 2004

¶3

Between:

¶4

Sunkara Rama Krishna Rao

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

AND

¶7

1. The Executive Officer-cum-Manager, Dhulipudi Group of Temples, Nagaram Mandal, Guntur District, and another.

¶8

RESPONDENTS

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶11

“…. To issue an appropriate writ order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2^nd respondent in passing appropriate orders on the application shubmitted by the petitioner and others on in the year 1997 for declaration as members of the founders family of Sri Rajagopala Swamy Temple, Dulipudi Village, Nagaram Mandal, Guntur District consequent to the order dated 8.05.2000 of the Regional Joint Commissioner Endowments Department, Tirupati and action of the 1^st respondent in not allowing the petitioner to participate in the temple functions as member of the founder family as illegal, irregular, arbitrary unjustified, unreasonable and unsustainable and direct the respondents to pass appropriate orders declaring the petitioner as member of the founder familky.”

¶12

2. Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent and the learned Government Pleader for the 2^nd respondent, apart from perusing the material available on record.

¶13

3. Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts, which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present writ petition are as under:

¶14

By virtue of the order in R.Dis.No.B2/8009/96, dated 3.08.1999, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur, the 2^nd respondent herein, recognised the petitioner and two others as the members of the founder family of Sri Rajagopala Swamy Temple, Dhulipudi Village, Nagaram Mandal, Guntur District. Aggrieved by the said order passed by

¶15

the Assistant Commissioner, one Mr. V. Venkateswara Prasad filed R.P.No.21 of 1999 before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-II, Endowments Department, Tirupati. The Regional Joint Commissioner, Tirupati, by virtue of an order dated 08.05.2000 remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur for fresh consideration after giving opportunity to all the individuals. Alleging interference of the 1^st respondent with regard to participation of the petitioner in the temple functions as member of the founder family, as being illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unjustified, unreasonable and unsustainable, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶16

4. This Court on 23.11.2004 passed the following order:

¶17

“Prima facie, it is evident that in the order, dated 03.08.1999, the 2^nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner, had undertaken extensive discussion and recognised the petitioner herein as founder trustee. The proceedings were set aside by the Joint Commissioner only on the ground that the reasonable opportunity was not given to the petitioner before him and the matter was remanded. For the last five years, the matter is pending before the 2^nd respondent without any result.

¶18

That being the case, the petitioner in the R.P. alone cannot be permitted to participate in the temple functions. The petitioners, who are on earlier occasion recognised as hereditary participants, shall be entitled to participate with due honour. This arrangement shall continue till the 2^nd respondent pass an order on the remand made to him by the Joint Commissioner. Post after one week.”

¶19

5. This Court issued Rule Nisi on 25.04.2005 but no counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents, either in the direction of denying the averments in the writ affidavit or in the direction of justifying the impugned action.

¶20

6. It is an admitted fact that the interim order granted by this Court as long back as on 23.11.2004 is still subsisting and the petitioner is functioning as member of the founder family. There is also no material

¶21

available on record as to what has happened to the matter, after remand by the Regional Joint Commissioner before the Assistant Commissioner. It is significant to note at this juncture that in view of the amendments made to Section 87 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, the Endowments Tribunal is given power under Section 87 (h) to decide as to whether a person is a member from the family of the founder of an Institution or Endowment. In view of the said amendment, now the matter is required to be dealt with by the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87 (h) of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments is obligated to take steps for transmitting the matter before him to the Tribunal for adjudication. At this length of time this Court is also not inclined to disturb the interim order passed by this Court, which is still continuing.

¶22

7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur, to transmit the matter pending before him to the Endowments Tribunal for necessary adjudication of the issue under Section 87 (h) of the Act. It is also made clear that pending adjudication by the Endowments Tribunal, the interim arrangement made by this Court dated 23.11.2004 shall continue to operate. No order as to costs.

¶23

8^th October, 2014 Js.

¶24

_______________________ JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.

Sunkara Rama Krishna Rao, v. The Executive officer-cum-Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunkara Rama Krishna Rao, v. The Executive officer-cum-Manager

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

K.v.Narayana Reddy Vs The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District

R. Satyanarayana, Vs The District Collector

Kacherlakota Annamraju Vs The District Collector, West Godavari District

G.Rama Murthy Vs a.P.Cooperative Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Anandi Bai Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Sri G.S.P Veera Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its