Date of reserved for orders Date of pronouncement Date of uploading APHC010625622017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 31 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 30919/2017 BETWEEN: 1. SRI VYASASRAMAM, YERPEDU CHITTOOR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PEETADHIPATHI SRI PARIPOORNANDAGIRI SWAMY 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE ASST COMMISS KRISHNA GEETHA ASRAMAM KADAPA. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, Date of reserved for orders : 19.08.2026 Date of pronouncement : 31.08.2026 : 02.09.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 30919/2017 SRI VYASASRAMAM, YERPEDU CHITTOOR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PEETADHIPATHI SRI PARIPOORNANDAGIRI SWAMY ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA THE ASST COMMISSIONERCUMEXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI KRISHNA GEETHA ASRAMAM KADAPA. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the [3330] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO SRI VYASASRAMAM, YERPEDU CHITTOOR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PEETADHIPATHI SRI PARIPOORNANDAGIRI SWAMY ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA IONERCUMEXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more declaring the 2 Proceedings of the 2nd Respondent herein in Rc.No.DP1/25/6/2017 dated 02.08.2017 and Proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in Rc.No.A2/3256/2015, dated 07.08.2017 (11.08.2017) as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1987 (Act No.30 of 1987) and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and without jurisdiction and consequently set the Proceedings of the 2nd Respondent herein in Rc.No.DP1/25/6/2017, dated 02.08.2017 and Proceedings of the 3rd Respondent in Rc.No.A2/3256/2015, dated 07.08.2017 (11.08.2017) and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C SUMON Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T VENU GOPAL SC FOR ENDOWMENTS (RAYALASEEMA REGION) 2. G RAMANA RAO 3. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 4. K SRIHARI RAO The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Heard Sri Srinivas Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, for the writ petitioner and Sri T. Venugopal, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent. 2. The 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 07.08.2017, 11.08.2017, to the writ petitioner i.e. Sri Paripurnanandagiri Swamy which are impugned in the writ petition the Telugu copy and the translation made by petitioner is extracted hereunder: It is hereby brought to the kind attention of Sri Sri Sri Paripoornanandagiri Swamyvaru, Vyasasramam, Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District that by way of proceedings referred to above, the Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P. 4 Amaravathi, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, has conferred full additional charge to the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kadapa District Administration and Development, Banking Transactions, Income Tax Transactions etc. in respect of Branch. It is therefore requested to Sri Sri Sri Paripoornanandagiri Swamyvaru, Vyasasramam, Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District to hand over the same to the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kadapa forthwith.” 3. According to the impugned order the petitioner was directed to hand over control and permit the third respondent, the Assistant Commissioner, to conduct bank transactions and file income tax returns for Geeta Krishna Ashramam. The said notices were assailed in the present Writ Petition. 4. It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner is the Peetadhipathi of Vyasasramam and the same was established in the year 1926 by Sri Maharshi Satguru Sri Sri Malayala Swamy. And there is a Ashramam known as Sri Krishna Geetha Ashramam, (hereinafter called as Geeta Ashramam), was established and founded by Sri Nama Yerukalaiah alias Yekarasananda Swamy with his own funds. 5. While so, founder of the Ashramam through letter dated 10.07.1991 requested the Endowment Department to amalgamate into the petitioner-Ashramam. On the letter dated 10.07.1991, the Deputy 5 Commissioner of Endowments Department, through proceedings dated 19.01.1994 recommended for the proposal of the amalgamation. Pursuant to the recommendation, the 2nd respondent inquired for the consent for amalgamation of the Geeta Ashramam with the petitioner- Ashramam, the petitioner has consented for the amalgamation through letter dated 12.08.1994. Thereafter, the 2ndrespondent issued notice in RC No.12/36955/91, dated 01.09.1994, inviting objections if any for the proposed amalgamation of the Geeta Ashramam with the Petitioner- Ashramam. Since, no objections were received from any one, the 2ndrespondent vide proceedings dated 18.01.1995 ordered for amalgamation of the Geeta Ashramam with the Petitioner-Ashramam without any conditions and time limit, considering the remarks submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kurnool, dated 13.09.1994 and the report of the Inspector for Endowment Department dated 08.11.1994. 6. It is further stated that the petitioner-Ashramam taken the said Ashramam and started administering the same, developed with the help of the disciples of petitioner-ashramam, managing the same in accordance with the purposes for which it was established. While things stood thus, on 12.08.2017, the 3rd respondent staff members pasted impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 02.08.2017 and also proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 11.08.2017 on the 6 wall of the petitioner-ashramam and the petitioner has received the same proceedings through registered post on 07.08.2017. According to the proceedings dated 07.08.2017 and 11.08.2017, the 2nd respondent without following the principles of natural justice and basing upon the letter addressed by the Regional Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, revoked amalgamation of the said Geetha Ashramam from the petitioner-ashramam and appointed the 3rd respondent herein as Executive Officer for the said Geetha Ashramam and directed the petitioner to hand over the same. And the said orders do not refer to the fact that the principals of natural justice had not been followed. The Act of the respondents in denying audi alteram partem subject to create prejudice and hardship to the petitioner. 7. The learned senior counsel would submit that through proceedings in Rc.No. DP1/2017 25.06.2017 dated 02.08.2017 the 2nd respondent Endowment Commissioner has separated the Geeta Krishna Ashramam from petitioner’s Vyasashramam. The learned senior counsel submitted that during amalgamation the principles of natural justice were duly observed, the said principle were not followed during separation or de-amalgamating the two ashrams. 8. It is further stated that the revocation under Section 145(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hundu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short hereinafter referred to as “Act 30 of 7 1987”), can be done only if it is found to be capable of managing the Geeta Ashramam by itself. Therefore, the situation referred to under Section 145(3) of the Act 30 of 1987 can alone warranting the 2nd respondents to pass the said orders. Therefore prayed to set aside the impugned orders. 9. It is profitable to extract the for disposal of the writ petition: Section 145: Adoption or amalgamation of institutions and Endowments. (1) Where the Commissioner has reason to believe that any religion institution is not capable of maintaining out of its funds, he may, in the interest of proper management of administration, subject to such restrictions and conditions as he may deem fit, direct the amalgamation or as the case may be, the adoption of such religious institution by any other religious institution having similar objects and capable of managing such institution and there upon the trustee of the institution to which it is amalgamated or by which it is adopted shall maintain and administer such institution. [Provided that the conditions to be satisfied for any such adoption or amalgamation shall be as may be prescribed.] [Added by Act No. 33 of 2007, dated 11.12.2007.] (2) On such amalgamation or adoption the institutions shall be deemed to compromise a single institution and administered as if they were a single institution published under Section 6. (3) Where the institution so amalgamated or as the case may be adopted under sub-section (1), subsequently found to be 8 capable of being managed by itself, the Commissioner may in the interest of proper management of administration, revoke the orders issued under sub-section (1), and there upon the institution shall manage its affairs independently out of its funds. (4) An appeal shall lie to the Government against the orders passed by the Commissioner under sub-section (1) or sub- section (3). 10. A lengthy counter-affidavit was filed, conceptualizing the defense to state that one advocate M. Amarnath Reddy predicted Sri Sri Paripoornanandagiri Swamy mis-conducts the transgressions and misdeeds. According to the affidavit, M. Amarnath Reddy took charge of the matam, sold its properties, and misappropriated its liquid cash. Sri Sri Paripoornanandagiri Swamy, unable to control M. Amarnath Reddy’s misdeeds and failing to protect the matam's properties, prompted the second respondent to appoint the third respondent as an Executive Officer to safeguard the assets. The affidavit reiterates that impugned notices were issued to the petitioner, but no explanation was offered. It states that Section 139 of the Act authorizes authorities to inspect and conduct inquiries, and accordingly, invoking Section 29 of the Act, an Executive Officer was appointed. The executive officer took possession of the property and currently managing the properties of Geeta Krishna Ashramam. The High Court had granted a status quo order based on the contentions raised by these respondents. However, 9 the counter-affidavit fails to address the petitioner's contention that the de-amalgamation or the revocation of the amalgamation was done without notice. 11. Counsel for the respondent stated that the rule of audi alteram partem is not attracted unless the impugned order is shown to have deprived a person of his liberty or his property. In the present case, it has to be seen whether such consequences have arisen from the impugned order. 12. The primary argument presented by the Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the amalgamation should strictly adhered to Section 145 of Act 30 of 1987. The Geetha Krishna Ashramam was integrated into the petitioner's Ashramam, and no notice was given to the petitioner prior to the revocation of this amalgamation. It is asserted that the fundamental principles of natural justice were not observed, and the counter submitted is silent regarding the issues raised by the petitioner. Furthermore, it is stated that the respondent's counsel cannot strengthen the case of the respondents without addressing the claims in the counter. Therefore, it is argued that this is an appropriate case to grant the relief and can cancel the impugned order. 13. Even according to Section 145 and Section 146 of Act 30 of 1987, no notice is required under these sections. The section does not 10 specify the issuance of a notice is mandatory. According to the counter affidavit one Advocate M. Amarnath Reddy’s is managing the Geeta Krishna Ashramam and the properties of Geeta Krishna Ashramam were alienated, and the petitioner Ashramam was unable to protect or safeguard the properties Geeta Ashramam. Sub-Section (3) of Section 145 of Act 30 of 1987 enables the Commissioner to revoke the orders issued under sub-section (1), for proper management and administration if the Ashramam is found to be capable of being managed properly. 14. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that the rules of natural justice cannot be put in a strait-jacket. Applicability of these rules depends upon the facts and circumstances relating to each particular given situation Thus, there is exclusion of the application of audi alteram partem rule to cases where nothing unfair can be inferred by not affording an opportunity to present and meet a case. This rule cannot be applied to defeat the ends of justice or to make the law 'lifeless, absurd, stultifying and self-defeating or plainly contrary to the common sense of the situation' and this rule may be jettisoned in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands. 11 15. The Apex Court even in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India & Anr1 observed that the explanation is quoted in the rule of audi alteram partem is a rule of justice and its application is excluded where the rule will itself lead to injustice. In the said judgment, it is observed that there are certain exceptional circumstances and situations whereunder the application of the rule of audi alteram partem is not attracted. 16. In Dharampal Satyapal Vs Deputy commissioner central Excise2, referring to the judgment in R.C. Tobacco (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 7 SCC 725 Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view: If it is felt that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision maker, then no legal duty to supply a hearing arises. 17. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Escorts Farms Ltd., Vs Commissioner Kumaon Division3 wherein, it has been observed which is quoted here under:- "Rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits. 1 (1978) 1 SCC 248 2 (2015) 8SCC 519 3 [(2004) 4 SCC 281] 12 18. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan Vs Colin Devaswom Board reported in [(2007) 7 SCC 482] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards are required to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/ shebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of 'fence eating the crops' should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. 19. Thus, there is exclusion of the application of audi alteram partem rule to cases where nothing unfair can be inferred by not affording an opportunity to present and meet a case. This rule cannot be applied to defeat the ends of justice or to make the law 'lifeless, absurd, stultifying and self-defeating or plainly contrary to the common sense of the situation' and this rule may be jettisoned in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands. 13 20. The 3rd respondent Executive Officer was appointed to protect the Geeta Ashramam’s properties. The Apex court in the case of A.A. Gopalakrishnan (referred supra) has held that whenever there being any misappropriation of lands of deities, temples the Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment further it is observed that it also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions when it causes injustice to the temple lands. 21. It is well established principle of law that when any order is made affecting the interest of a person which results in civil consequences, the person affected is required to be heard before passing such an order. In the present case though the writ petition is filed technically under Ashramam’s name, the interest of the Paripurnanandagiri Swamy, founder of Vyasashramam, concerned with the properties of Geeta Krishna Ashramam. The very purpose of amalgamation is to safeguard the properties of Geeta Ashramam, conversely, the properties of Geeta Ashramam are being alienated and the proverb ‘the fencing eating the crop’ is being implemented in the present case. The interest of Geeta Ashramam outweighs the personal interest of the Paripoornananda Swamy. 14 22. Therefore, for the reasons stated above the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 31.08.2026 Harin 15 1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 30919 OF 2017 Date: 31-08-2026 Harin