APHC010032822014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 11788/2014 Between: T.s.rajeswaran, ...PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner Of Endowments And and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 2. . The Court made the following: 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 a writ in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments and Executive Officer (FAC) of Sri Sampath Vinayagar Temple, Asilmetta, Visakhapatnam in Rc.No.54/2014, dated 15-03-2014 addressing to the Commissioner of Endowments, AP, Hyderabad to remove 2 the joint operation for the 4 items referred to in the impugned proceedings in view of the non-obtaining of a declaration from the AP Endowments Tribunal as a member of the founders family to the subject temple as illegal arbitrary opposed to law one without jurisdiction…….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that Sri Sampath Vinayagar Temple situated at Asilmetta Village, Visakhapatnam (for short “subject temple”) is an institution classified under Section 6(a)(ii) and registered under Section 38 of the Endowments Act, 17 of 1966 of the Endowments Act. The petitioner herein is a member of the founder’s family having been recognized by the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments passed in R.Dis.No.A1/4315/98/Admn., dated 28.09.1998 after an elaborate enquiry conducted by the competent authority under the provisions of the Act. The said declaration was obtained under the Circular instructions which was in force in the year 1988 issued by the Commissioner of Endowments in J5/5288/96 (Acts and Rules), dated 25.03.1996, wherein the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments is the appropriate jurisdiction irrespective of the classification of the institution, was given the power to recognize and declare a member of the founder’s family. The Commissioner of Endowments passed the said circular consequent to the abolition of hereditary rights and bringing into force Act 30 of 1987 which upheld the rights of the member of the founder’s family under the new Enactment. The consequent entries made under 43(10) of the Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Visakhapatnam also referred to the name of the petitioner as a member of the 3 founder’s family being recognized by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments on 28.09.1998. The 43(10) register which affects the changes made relating to institution once in three years also indicates and reiterates that the petitioner being recognized as a member of the founder’s family by the proceedings of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Visakhapatnam and consequent certificate also issued by the very same authority by his proceedings dated 28.03.2012. While so, the 1st respondent made that the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments and Executive Officer of the subject temple directed for cancellation of joint operations on the ground of not obtaining a declaration under Section 87(1)(h) of the Act. Further, the 1st respondent has not explained with regard to what the hardship caused in there being a joint cheque operation and the administration being run together in harmony with the petitioner herein. While things stood thus, the 1st respondent issued proceedings Rc.No.54/2014, dated 15.03.2014 addressing to the Commissioner of Endowments for cancellation of joint operation relating to the items specified in the impugned proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. This Court, vide order dated 22.04.2014, has passed the following order in WPMP.No.14827 of 2014: “While the dispute in this Writ Petition relates to a request made by the first respondent that joint operation of the bank account be withdrawn, and he be permitted to operate the account alone, Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing 4 Counsel for the first respondent, would submit that the petitioner-a founder trustee, along with the archaka of the temple, was collecting amounts, for conducting homams and other poojas, without issuing any tickets or accounting for the proceeds received therefrom. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the petitioner is not even signing cheques for statutory payments required to be made in terms of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity, „the Act‟). Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would deny these allegations and submit that the petitioner has no objection for tickets to be issued by the first respondent for homams and poojas, provided the proceeds, in their entirety, are deposited in a bank account. Learned counsel also undertakes, on behalf of the petitioner, that the petitioner would subscribe his signature on the cheques drawn for payment of statutory dues under the provisions of the Act. As conferring cheque signing powers on one individual may well lead to its misuse, and as the interest of the institution would be better served if both the Trustee and the Executive Officer sign cheques jointly, the respondents are directed, for the present, to continue the joint cheque signing powers of the petitioner and the third respondent pending further orders on condition that the petitioner adheres to the undertaking aforementioned. Post the W.P.M.P. after Summer Vacation, 2014.” 4. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the petitioner disobeyed his undertaking and not signing cheques for statutory payments required to be made in terms of the provisions of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. The petitioner has refused to sign on the file EAF as the same was placed before the petitioner on 25.01.2013 and 10.02.2014, but the petitioner refused to sign. It is further stated that the petitioner is reluctant to introduce pooja, rusums, etc., in the temple as he is 5 misusing the temple funds in collusion with the archakas by collecting money for poojas and abhishekams and also the plate collections. When the Executive Officer submitted a proposal to the petitioner for resolution on the poojas conducted with an intention to have a transparency in the administration of the temple, the same was refused by the petitioner. When notification was issued for introducing the tickets and called objections/suggestions from the public, some nine people submitted their objection stating that when there is no such practice previously and the same should not be introduced now. It is further stated that the deity is having gold and silver articles. As per Section 29 of the Act 30/87, the Executive Officer is personally responsible for the valuables particularly the gold and silver articles. Whenever there is transfer of Executive Officer, the previous Executive Officers should personally handover the gold and silver articles to the new incumbent officer. But the petitioner had never handed over bank locker keys to the Executive Officer and there is transparency in financial dealings. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard Mr.M.VidyaSagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, for 1st respondent and learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the impugned proceedings 6 shows a transparent administration being undertaken in view of removing the joint operations cannot be termed to be a justifiable exercise, but it has got to be presumed that the Executive Officer of the subject temple wants to run single handedly without there being any disturbance so that any amount of abuse would remain a closely guarded secret not being subject to any scrutiny from any corner. He further submits that the Executive Officer is attempting to disturb the joint operations under a lame excuse of referring the Section 87(1)(h) of Endowments Act, alleging that the declaration obtained by the petitioner is 16 years back and it cannot be a ground for the petitioner to exercise his rights as a founder. He further submits that the cheques and fixed deposit receipts which is an amount which cannot be touched as FDs are to be reinvested and in the event of permitting the FDRs to be encashed by the Executive Officer, it would be the sole discretion of the Executive Officer to use it for any other institution and probably that is the reason as to why she is asking for the custody of FDRs. He further submits that the keys of the bank locker, which are under the custody of the petitioner and the reference to the gold article seems to be one of the reason to take administration in her own hands. When all these operations are jointly being done by the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent, it has to be welcomed as an action which was contemplated by the Commissioner of Endowments and the petitioner cannot be denied of these joint operations without any plausible or justifiable reason. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 7 7. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, this Court in the decision of Alhari Narayana SwamyVs Commissioner1, held that the trustee is not entitled to maintain and operate Bank accounts on behalf of the temple jointly with the Executive Officer. He further submits that, in the decision of A.Shankar Reddy Vs Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad and others2, held that where joint cheque power of founder trustee was withdrawn, there was no violation of statutory right, as trustee not entitled as a matter of right to maintain and operate Bank account on behalf of the temple jointly with the Executive Officer. He further submits that there are nearly 129 FDRs amounting to Rs.8,33,17,470/- and the maintenance cost of the temple is minimum and the remaining amount is being deposited in the FDRs. But the said FDRs are being kept by the petitioner in his custody without handing over the same to the Executive Officer. The temple is having four hundials and they will opened for twenty days and the collection from the hundials is nearly about eight to nine lakhs for twenty days. As per the provisions of the A.P. Endowments Act, the keys of the hundials should be kept with the Executive Officer of the temple, who is responsible for the money received by the temple. But the petitioner retained the keys with him without handing over the same to the 11998 (4) ALT 286 22010 (3) ALT 702 8 Executive Officer till date. He further submits that the petitioner has not obtained any declaration as contemplated under Section 87(1)(h) of the A.P. Endowments Act, 30/87. Without obtaining any such order, the petitioner simply resorting to the activities which are against the provisions of the A.P. Endowments Act and the rules framed there under. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Perused the record. 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 43(10) register indicates that the petitioner being recognized as a member of the founder’s family by the proceedings of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Visakhapatnam. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though there is no disturbance from the petitioner, the action of the 1st respondent in cancelling the joint operations relating to the temple is illegal, arbitrary and unjust. 10. Moreover, it is the contention of learned Assistant Government Pleader that, as per the provisions of the A.P. Endowments Act, the keys of the hundials should be kept with the Executive Officer of the temple, who is responsible for the money received by the temple. But the petitioner is not depositing any FDRs to the petitioner and he is keeping the same in his custody without handing over the same to the Executive Officer. 9 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels, it appears that there is a discrepancy between the petitioner and the Executive Officer of the temple with regard to functioning of the joint operations of the temple. Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition, while making the interim order dated 22.04.2014 as absolute, directing both the Trustee and the Executive Officer to sign cheques jointly, in order to serve the institution in a better way. 12. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 13. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 10-01-2025 BMS