APHC010534552016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 34720/2016 Between: Pullela Satya Rama Linga Sastry, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G SIMHADRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the proceedings Ref No A2/4038/93 dated 07.05.1993 and not following the procedure under Rule 46 of G.O.Ms. No.888 dated 08.12.2000 for appointment of Assistance for Archakas as illegal and Arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to take necessary action on the legal notice of the petitioner in 2 accordance with Rule 46 of G.O.Ms.No.888 dated 08.12.2000 and pass… 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are that his grand father namely Sri Pullela Vishwanatha Sharma rendered his service in Sri Bhadrakalisametha Veereshwara Swamy temple, Muramalla village as Purohit to perform Abhishekam and Kalayanam etc., for about 50 years on payment of remuneration in Pooja Resumes, subsequently his grandfather expired on 11.04.2004, accordingly, the petitioner born in Archakas family and he is also performing poojas. It is further stated that he regularly goes to 4th respondent temple for offering Puja. While so, when he was trying to offer puja, the authorities of 4th respondent temple objected for the same stating that the 3rd respondent issued orders dated 07.05.1993 whereby “except Archakas or their appointed persons for their assistance, others are not allowed Sanctum(Garbha Gruha). It is further stated that he came to know that on 18.03.1993 a general body was held in the 4th respondent temple and it was resolved that “in Sri Swamy Temple Sanctum (Garbha Gruha) except Archakas and their appointed Assistances, others are prohibit for enter into the Sanctum(Garbha Gruha), it gives full authorization to Executive Officer in this regard”. In pursuance of the said resolution dated 18.03.1993, the 3rd respondent issued orders dated 07.05.1993 as noted above. It is further stated that earlier in the 4th respondent temple not only local village people, but also other villagers used to enter into the temple and perform pujas, but however, after the 3 resolution, dated 18.03.1993, was passed, except the Archakas or their appointed persons, the other people in the village or the people of other villages are not being allowed to enter into the temple Sanctum (Garbha Gruha), which is in violation of provisions of A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. It is further stated that the 4th respondent temple is acting contrary to the Rule 46 of G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08.12.2000 in the matter of appointment of assistants for Archakas. The petitioner, therefore, issued a legal notice to the respondent authorities to set aside the order dated 07.05.1993 and to appoint eligible candidates for assistance to Archakas through employment exchange or paper publication. As no action has been taken on the said legal notice, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to set aside the proceedings dated 07.05.1993 issued by the 3rd respondent and for consequential protection to take necessary action on the legal notice of the petitioner in accordance with Rule 46 of G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08.12.2000. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent stating that the orders dated 07.05.1993 of the Assistant Commissioner were made keeping in view of the agamana sastras and the sanctity of the temple. Those proceedings were issued for administrative reasons to take strict measures where except the authorised persons other persons should not enter the sanctum(Garbha Gruha). It is further stated that the order dated 07.05.1993 was issued only to upkeep the sacredness and sanctity of the temple and 4 there is no illegality in resisting the outsiders and other unauthorised persons in entering the sanctum of the temple. It is further stated that if the temple wants to appoint any Archakas and assistants, they have to give a requisition to the employment exchange and shall make appointments as per Rule 46 of G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08.12.2000 cannot be accepted as the 4th respondent temple is not proposing to make any fresh appointments on regular basis as such there is no necessity to give requisition to the employment exchange and make appointments. It is further stated that it is evident and clear that by way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is trying to force the 4th respondent temple to make regular appointments, so that the petitioner can enter into the temple by hook or crook. The entire affidavit filed by the petitioner revolves around only the appointments made in the 4th respondent temple and allowing the assistants of archakas but not about the delay in challenging the order dated 07.05.1993 and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition. 4. Heard Sri G.Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents made in the petition, submits that he belonged to Archakas family and he used to go to Sri Vighneswara Swamy Vari Temple for offering Puja, while so, when he tried to offer pooja in the 4th respondent 5 temple, he was objected, then he came to know about the proceedings dated 07.05.1993 issued by the third respondent. He further argued that the 2nd respondent issued circular in Rc.No.B2/43466/2011, dated 09.01.2012 stating that no vacant post shall be filled up at any point of time where there is ban on appointments and if such services are very much essential to run the administration, the Executive Officer may engage and utilize the services through outsourcing, which is illegal and arbitrary to the provisions of A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Endowments submits that the petitioner herein is indirectly making an averment that he shall be allowed into the temple without following due process of law and without enquiry whether he is having saptavesanams or not, which cannot be accepted and the petitioner cannot be allowed into the sanctum. The petitioner herein is a habituated chronic litigant, who files the cases against the temples and uses the blackmailing tactics. It is further argued that by way of this petition, the petitioner is trying to force the 4th respondent temple to make regular appointments. 7. Perused the material on record. 8. The archakas can only enter into the sanctum and their assistants means persons who are assisting the archakas and remunerated by the archakas will be entered into the sanctum who are well versed in the Sivaagamas only. The 4th respondent temple is not proposing to make any 6 fresh appointments on regular basis as such there is no necessity to give requisition to the employment exchange and make appointments. In view of the same, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of any relief. Therefore, this Court found no merits in the instant writ petition and this petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date : 28.03.2025 sj 7 307 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.34720 of 2016 Date :28.03.2025 sj