'■ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAV (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 7446 OF 2025 Between: L Praveen Kumar Reddy, s/o Tirupala Reddy, aged about 39 years, Kisan Nagar, Nellore. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Endowments), Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Commissioner, Endowments department, Gollapudi, Amaravathi. 3. The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments department. Tirupathi Region, Tirupathi. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Guntur division, Guntur. 5. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments department, Nellore district, Nellore. 6. The Talpagiri Ranganadha Swamy Devasthanam, Ranganayakulupeta , Nellore (Town and mandalam), Nellore. Rep by its Executive Authority. 7. Sri Kidambi Jagannadhacharyulu, s/o Narasimhacharyulu about 66 years, R/o 823C)5, Ranganayakulupeta, Nellore. Hindu, aged near old endowment Chitrakootam, ...Respondents Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue of WRIT OF CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Call for the records of the proceedings dated 02.01.2025 in D. Dis. No. C2/COE-13023(49)712/2022 issued by the .V 2nd ^respondent recognizing the 7 respondent as hereditary archaka of the 6th respondent temple and SET-ASIDE the proceedings dated 02.01.2025 in D. Dis. No. C2/COE-13023(49)712/2022 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, is one without Jurisdiction, null and void, violative of provisions of AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and rules made thereunder as amended from time to time and cotrary to Articles 14, 25 and 26 of Constitution of India. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY of the proceedings dated 02.01.2025 in D.Dis. No. C2/COE- 13023(49)/12/2022 issued by the 2nd respondent, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI. J.V.PHANIDUTH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS M/s.Devi Siubhashini Anne, Standing Counsel The Court made the following: APHC010141752025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 7446/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER L Praveen Kumar Reddy AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.J.V.PHANIDUTH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 2.DEVI SUBHASHINI ANNE SC For Endowments 3.DVSASIDHAR The Court made the following: ORDER:- Heard Sri J.V.Phaniduth, learned counsel for the petitioner, St learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the 1 to 5^*^ respondents, Ms. Anne Devi Subhashini, learned Standing Counsel for th the 6 respondent and Sri D.VSasidhar, learned counsel for the 7*^ respondent. I 2 The writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 2"^ respondent recognizing the 7'^espondent as Hereditary Archaka of the 6'^respondentTemple. 2. It is contended that the /''^respondent was appointed as Paricharaka in 6'*^ respondent Temple in the year 1974. Later in 1994, he was promoted as Archaka. It is further contended that the 7"" respondent is the first one in his family to have rendered services as Archaka in the Temple. The respondent issued proceedings for retirement of 7**^ respondent. Challenging the same, writ petition was filed by the 7"^ respondent in W.P.No.3235 of 2021, pending the writ petition the 2"'' respondent issued proceedings dated 31.05.2021 recognizing the 7'*^ respondent as Pradhana respondent issued proceedings recognizing the /'Respondent as member of Hereditary Archaka family. Challenging the same, the instant writ petition is filed. The contention of the petitioner is that the request of the 7"^ respondent for appointment as Hereditary Archaka was turned down by the 2"'' respondent vide proceedings dated 26.01.2023. He filed writ petition in W.P.No.3961 of 2023, which is pending. Pending the same, the impugned 3. th 6 nd Archaka. Subsequently, on 02.01.2025, the 2 4. proceedings were passed recognizing the petitioner as member of Hereditary Archaka. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the earlier round of litigation, the 2'^^' respondent filed his counter affidavit stating that as per the records, the services rendered by the /""respondent were not as 5. 3 Hereditary Archaka and in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.3961 of 2023 filed against the rejection of application as hereditary trustee. It is stated that the petitioner entered the service as Paricharaka on consolidated salary of Rs.60/- and that the services of Paricharaka and Archaka are non-mirasi services, therefore, the petitioner cannot have hereditary rights of archakatvam. The 2'^'^ respondent in the counter affidavits filed in the previous writ petitions has stated the petitioner negated the claim of the 7'*^ respondent. However, vide the impugned proceedings taking contrary stand, recognized the petitioner as Hereditary Archaka observing that forefathers of the petitioner has rendered archakatvam. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the decision of the 2"‘^respondent would amount to review of his own order. Once the services of the T'^^respondent were only recognized as Archaka on payment of monthly remuneration, recognition as Hereditary Archaka would not arise. Therefore, the same is not sustainable. He relies on the following decisions. the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Naresh Kumar (i) :1 and Others Vs. Government of NOT of Delhi the decision of this Court in the case of Gas Authority of India Limited (ii) Vs. The Competent Authority and Special Deputy Collector, Gas Authority of India Ltd. and Others^ (iii) the decision of this Court in the case of Yellanti Renuka Vs. The State ofA.P.^ ^ AIR Online 2019 SC 1224 ^ AIR 1997 ANOHRA PRADESH 284 I 4 (iv) the decision of this Court in the case Pothina Venkata Mahesh Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others'* Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel Ms. Anne Devi Subhashini, appearing for the S'^^respondent would contend that the petitioner 6. has no locus to file the writ petition. It is contended that the pursuant to the directions of the Government of Andhra Pradesh to prepare Hereditary Archaka Scheme under Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Hereditary Archakas Qualifications and 2019, published G.O.Ms.No.439, Rev(Endts-l) Emoluments Rules, Department, dated 21.10.2019 the conditions prescribed therein for Hereditary Archaka are; (1) They shall continue to hold such office or posts on payment of emoluments U/S 144 of the Act (2) He should be member of Archaka family. (3) He should be qualified as Archaka. (4) Continued Archakatwam as per the date of repealing of 1966 Endowment Act. (5) Recognized Archaka by the Competent Authority. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 6*^espondent has placed before the Court, copy of the instructions received in the case. A perusal of the same, it would reveal that the Diary was maintained by the then Temple authorities, in which everyday ritual that would be performed in the Temple was noted. One Late Kidambi Venkata Raghavacharyulu’s name was 7. shown as employee in the post of Paricharaka. ^ 2022 (1) ALT Online (AP) 2126 (S.B.) " 2020 (2) ALT 255 (S.B.) 5 It is further mentioned in the said instructions that the said Diary 8. was maintained w.e.f. 01.04.1925, therefore, the same would be an evidence to show that the said late Late Kidambi Venkata Raghavacharyulu, was in service in the year 1925 and further shows that the said Raghavacharyulu performed Aradhana and Archaka Kainkaryam to Lord Ranganadha Swamy Varu basing on the oral orders of the Trustee (Court Receiver). He retired from service in 1981. The petitioner and his brother Srinivasa Ramanujacharyulu joined the temple as Paricharaka and promoted to the posts of Archaka. The petitioner joined in service in 1972, whereas his brother joined the service in1960. It is noted from the written instructions of the 6‘^ respondent that 9. the then Deputy Commissioner had also passed orders determining the shares of the Archakas and the Temple in archana ticket and harathi plate collections. In connection thereto, it is stated that the register maintained in the said regard shows payment of the share of the Archakas. He further stated that the then Executive Officer of the temple had filed counter in W.P.No.3961 of 2023 stating that “as per the records of the Temple the grandfather and father of the petitioner (Sri Kidambi Jagannadhacharyulu) worked in the temple prior to him hereditarily. Sri Kidambi Srinivasa Ramanujacharyulu S/o. Narasimhacharyulu who is none other than the brother of the petitioner also worked in the temple as Archaka and higher posts on promotion in the temple and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. 6 Perused the record. The Commissioner while passing the impugned order has categorically referred to the earlier decision of the department where under the claim made by the 7*'' respondent herein was rejected. He observed that in the earlier round, the claim made by the /Respondent was rejected on the basis of the report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments. On further application of the petitioner, a report was called for from the Temple. The Executive Officer of the Temple has submitted a detailed reply along with the genealogical tree of the family of the /Respondent. The Commissioner has thus basing on the report of the E.O., has reconsidered the case of the petitioner as a member of Hereditary Archaka Family of 6^'^ respondent Temple. The contention of the petitioner is mainly on the ground that the department in the earlier round of litigation has categorically stated that there is no post of Hereditary Archaka in the Temple and the petitioner’s family members were never recognizedfor the said position. Having said so, the authorities cannot go back on the same. The said submission of the petitioner may not be sustainable since the 10. Commissioner in the present case categorically observed that in the earlier round of litigation, no report from the Temple was called for. It is now the E.O., of the Temple has placed the material before the Commissioner. On the basis of the same, the case of the petitioner was considered as member of Hereditary Archaka family, of the 6*^ respondent. / 11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. OneCCto SRI. J.V.PHANIDUTH Advocate [OPUCJ 2. One CC to Devi Subhashini Anne, Standing Counsei [OPUCJ 3. Two CCS to GP for ENDOWMENTS .High Court Of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies. Ksr (gsg) HIGH COURT DATED:04/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.7446 of 2025 X 2 6 lUN 2025 m Co ^ Current Secnon ^ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS