Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010351352025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WP(PIL) NO: 118 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-40 [3552]
Lukka Srinivasa Rao ...Petitioner Vs. The State Of Ap and Others ...Respondent(s)
********** Advocate for Petitioner:
PARTY IN PERSON Advocate(s) for Respondent(s):
GP FOR ENDOWMENTS, Mrs.PULIPATI RADHIKA, Mr.SUNKARA RAJENDRA PRASAD
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
DATE :
26th November 2025
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan)
This Public Interest Litigation is instituted by petitioner, challenging G.O.Rt.No.326, Revenue (Endts.II) Department, dated 15.03.2024, issued by 1st respondent, by which Government of Andhra Pradesh has constituted a renovation committee to renovate Sri Sakaleswara Swamy Temple, Royyuru Village, Thotlavalluru Mandal, Krishna District, to be illegal and unconstitutional. 2 HC, J & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No.118 of 2025
2. Petitioner appeared as party-in-person and primarily contended that the Government had constituted renovation committee in exercising powers under Section 146 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (herein after, for short ‘the Act’) r/w Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Renovation Committee Rules, 1987 (hereafter, for short ‘the Rules’), without issuing proper notification advertising for the applications from prospective applicants and therefore, the procedure adopted in constitution of renovation committee is completely vitiated. However, learned Government Pleader for Endowments maintained that since Sri Sakaleswara Swamy Temple was in dilapidated condition, the 1st respondent, exercising powers under Section 146 of the Act has constituted renovation committee in order to execute and complete the works of the subject temple and further that already the works have been completed and even inaugural ceremony was also conducted. It is further submitted that in terms of Section 146 of the Act, the Government is amply empowered to constitute a committee and further that the provisions of Act and Rules do not envisage or contemplate inviting applications through paper
3 HC, J & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No.118 of 2025 advertisement for the purpose of constitution of renovation committee, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 3. Section 146(1) of the Act empowers the State Government to constitute a committee for the purpose of renovation of the temple or structures. Sub-section (2) thereof envisages the Government to prescribe the functions of such committee. In exercise of powers conferred thereby, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.649, dated 30.06.1989, inter alia prescribing the Rules. 4. Rule 3 of the said Rules contemplates constitution of renovation committee.
The Government, therefore, in exercise of powers under Section 146 of the Act r/w Rule 3 of the Rules is required to issue notification appointing renovation committee to any temple by specifying the members for such committee and that it is required to ensure that the members so appointed should possess the qualifications as specified in Section 18 and free from disqualifications envisaged in Section 19 of the Act. Rule 7 postulates the functions of the committee. A perusal of the impugned G.O. goes to show that the Government, rightly exercising powers under Section 146 of the Act r/w Rule 3 of the
4 HC, J & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No.118 of 2025 Rules, has notified the constitution of renovation committee to the subject temple for a period of three years in order to complete balance works and the persons who have been appointed to the committee were notified accordingly. Neither Section 146 of the Act nor the Rules envisage issuance of any advertisement calling for applications as contended by the petitioner. In view of the same, we find no merit in such contention. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is devoid of merits and hence, stands dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ
CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J
ss