APHC010215102015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 32909/2015 Between: Sri Charuguntla Venkata Jagannadha Vyshnava and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V S K RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 2. ELEVATED AS JUDGE The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings dated 07.11.2014 of the 3rd respondent appointing the Executive Officer of Sri Bhavani Muktheswara Swamy Temple, Muktyala Village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District as Single Trustee to Sri Charugureillk Venkata Jagannadha Vyshnava Ramanuja Dharma Satram, Jaggaiahpeta Town & Mandal, Krishna District, without issuing any notice the petitioners herein 2 and without causing any enquiry as required spicier the provisions of the Act 30/87 as bad, illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the rules and consequently set-aside the said proceedings….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners’ grandfather Sri Venkata Jaganadham has founded the Ramanuja Dharma Satram (for short “the satram”) for providing free food to the vyshanavites by way of annadanam on every month on Dwadasi day. After the founder, his adopted son Ch.Jaganmohan Rao has maintained the Satram till his death in the year 1991. Thereafter the 2nd petitioner and his adopted son has been maintaining the satram from 1991 onwards till today. During the lifetime of the Venkata Jaganadham, he has executed a document vide No.690/1916, dated 15.08.1916 bequeathing an extent of Ac.15.32 cents in Door Nos.43, 144 of Bhimavaram Village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal along with an extent of Ac.2.40, 1.78 cents, 30.87 cents, 6.93 cents in Door Nos.364, 365/A and 365/B along with a house site admeasuring 174.5 sq.yds of house site with a tiled house. The petitioners are the hereditary trustees of the satram as per the will of the founders and that the satram has to be managed by the petitioners. While things stood thus, the 5th respondent approached the petitioners along with the impugned proceedings dated 07.11.2014 issued by the 3rd respondent appointing the 5th respondent as Single Trustee to Sri Chargundla Venkata Jagannadham Vyshnava Ramanuja Dharma Satram, without issuing any notice to the petitioners and without causing any enquiry as required under the 3 provisions of the Act 30/87 and demanded to handover the charge to the 5th respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. This Court, vide order dated 09.10.2015, directed the respondents not to interfere with the management of the temple. However, the competent authority may take steps to appoint regular Executive Officer, if the same is permissible in accordance with the provisions of the Act 30 of 1987. 4. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that Sri Chargundla Venkata Jagannadham Vyshnava Ramanuja Dharma Satram, Jaggaiahpeta, NTR District is published under Section 6(c)(i) of the Act 30/1987 and under the administrative control of the 4th respondent. It is further stated that the petitioners have not produced any documentary evidence showing that the petitioners are hereditary trustee or member of founder family declared by the Department. It is further stated that since the institution having landed property and to protect the valuable properties and the institution itself published under the provisions of Endowments Act, the 3rd respondent herein appointed the 5th respondent as Single Trustee to the satram for which the 5th respondent is competent under Section 15(2) of the Act 30/1987. Therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 5. The 5th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the trust building has collapsed long 4 back and is not maintained properly as such, weeds and bushes have grown in the property and the objects of the trust are not being fulfilled as on today. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent has appointed the 5th respondent in the interest of the institution and for the better management to protect the properties of the trust as per Section 15(2) of the Act 30/87 and the 5th respondent has taken oath of office and secrecy on 12.11.2014 in the presence of Inspector, Endowments Department, Nandigama. 6. Heard Mr.V.S.K.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, who appeared virtually through video conferencing and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 7. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, as per Section 15, the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department can constitute a board of trustees. He further submits that as per Section 19, the various disqualifications are envisaged and among which sub-section(1)(g) contemplates disqualification as “...If a person is an office holder or servant attached to, or a person in receipt of emoluments or perquisite from subject institution or endowment, he is not qualified to be appointed as trustee”. He further submits that as per the provisions of the Act, the Executive Officer of a temple cannot be appointed as a single trustee to another institution. 5 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the decision of this Court between Guduru Ramalingeswara Rao vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others1, wherein this Court held as follows: “Admittedly, the procedure as envisaged in the Act read with Rules 1987 is not followed before appointing the 6th respondent as single trustee. Such appointment is ex facie illegal as no such power is vested in the Deputy Commissioner to appoint a single trustee without following due procedure.” 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon the above decision, submits that, as per Section 18(d) of the Act, the appointment of Single Trustee is ex-facie illegal and bad. Therefore, learned counsel prays to allow the writ petition. 10. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, the disqualification under Section 19(1) (g) of the Act does not apply to the case of the petitioners herein as the petitioners not receiving any emoluments from the institution. Further the Executive Officer appointed as Single Trustee receives the salary from government treasury and not from the institution or endowment for which he is appointed. He further submits that Section 18(d) prescribes the qualification for appointing a person as trustee. The procedure and the rules envisaged under the Act for appointment of board of trustee are applicable only for appointment of board of trustees and not for appointment of a single trustee. He further submits that section 15 prescribes the appointment of board of trustees and an exemption is given under Section 15(2) proviso for 1 W.P.No.14281 of 2015, dated 06.08.2015 6 appointing of a Single Trustee instead of board of trustees. As per Section 15(2), there is no specific bar in appointing an Executive Officer as Single Trustee. The Single Trustee is appointed instead of board of trustees as per the plain reading of the Section 15(2) and there is no necessity for following any procedure as followed for appointing board of trustees. He further submits that the Executive Officer appointed under Section 29 of the Act 30/87 to the satram will not have any personal interest in the administration of the subject temple. The 3rd respondent has appointed the 5th respondent under Section 15(2) of Act 30/87 in the interest of the institution. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition. 11. Perused the record. 12. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the Writ Petition No.14281 of 2015 was allowed by this Court with the following observations: “14. Admittedly, the procedure as envisaged in the Act read with Rules 1987 is not followed before appointing the 6th respondent as single trustee. Such appointment is ex facie illegal as no such power is vested in the Deputy Commissioner to appoint a single trustee without following due procedure. Furthermore, there is merit in the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in accordance with the provision contained in section 18(d), person appointed as a trustee, more so if he is a single trustee, should have sufficient time and interest to attend to the affairs of the institution. Admittedly, the 6th respondent is an Executive Officer of big temple, which is located far away from the subject temple. Therefore, it cannot be expected that 6th respondent would be able to spare sufficient time and interest to attend to the affairs of the subject temple. The clause in Section 18(d) has to be given due weight. It is in the interest of proper administration of the temple. The very purpose to appoint a single trustee is defeated if a person so appointed is unable to spare his time to the temple. Thus, in terms of the provision contained in section 18(d), the 6th respondent is not qualified to be appointed as single trustee.” 7 15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, it appears that, as per Section 18 (d) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, a person can only be appointed as a trustee, if they have sufficient time and interest to attend the affairs of the institution. In the present case, the 5th respondent is the Executive Officer of Sri Bhavani Mukhteswara Swamy Temple, which is a big temple. Therefore, it cannot be expected that the 5th respondent would be able to devote sufficient time and interest to attend to the affairs of the satram. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that, in terms of the provision contained in Section 18 (d), the 5th respondent is not qualified to be appointed as a Single Trustee. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 07.11.2014 issued by the 3rd respondent. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings dated 07.11.2014 issued by the 3rd respondent is hereby set aside. No costs. 17. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 28.02.2025 BMS