APHC010541372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] MONDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 27931/2025 Between: Mummidi Kama Raju ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BOLLA VENKATA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking the following main relief:- “……to issue any Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing the Notice vide Computer No.A1/57729/2025, dated 26-9-2025 whereby directed the Petitioner to submit application under section 43(1) of Endowments Act to register the Temple Sri Abhaya Anjaneya Swamy vari Devastanam, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada, Kakinada District, within 15 days from the date of receipt of said notice, without giving any show cause notice or opportunity to the Petitioner, as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional, colourable exercise of power, against to principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987, and rules made there under and to pass……” 2. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the notice vide Computer No.A1/57729/2025, dated 26.09.2025, issued by the 2nd respondent/District Endowments Officer, Endowments Department, Kakinada District, Kakinada, under Section 43(1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1987 (Act No.30 of 1987), to register the Temple Sri Abhaya Anjaneya Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada, Kakinada District, within a period of fifteen (15) days. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Endowments. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being a staunch devotee of Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple, has erected a small statue of Sri Anjaneya Swamy in the place of APIIC at Kakinada in the year 2006 and 3 since then, the petitioner has been performing poojas. He submits that the petitioner is managing the temple with the cooperation of local devotees and a Society was also registered vide Regd.No.427/2022, for the development of the temple. 5. The learned counsel submits that all of a sudden, the impugned notice dated 26.09.2025 was issued by the respondent authorities directing the petitioner to submit an application to register the subject temple under Section 43(1) of the Endowments Act, within 15 days. While stating that the said action of the respondents is against the principles of natural justice, learned counsel seeks appropriate directions of this Court. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments submits that the subject temple is situated in the Government site and the petitioner is also collecting donations from the general public, which is against the provisions of the Act No.30 of 1987, as such after perceiving the ground realities, the 2nd respondent issued Orders dated 26.09.2025, whereby and where under directing the petitioner to apply him under Section 43(4) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1987 and register the subject temple under the purview of the Endowments. 7. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the instant notice dated 26.09.2025 is not preceded by any show cause notice, which is against the ‘spirit and intendment’ of Section 43(1) of the Act No.30 of 1987, and also principles of natural justice. 4 8. Considering the facts and circumstances involved in the lis and without going into the merits of the case, this Court on the aspect of principles of natural justice, is of the view that though the impugned order is termed as notice, the same is in the form of an order. In this context, it is appropriate to refer to the mandate made in Canara Bank vs. V K Awasthy1, wherein the Apex Court had held that the principles of natural justice are applicable even in the absence of an express provision in the statutory framework. The relevant para is extracted hereunder: “……14. Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed there under. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the fact and circumstances of that case, the framework of the statute under which the enquiry is held. The old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act has withered away. Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice. The expression "civil consequences" encompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non- pecuniary damages. In its wide umbrella comes everything that affects a citizen in his civil life……” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.K Kraipak Vs. Union of India2, had unequivocally held that no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing/opportunity. Further, the said dictum was 1 (2005) 6 SCC 321 2 (1969) 2 SCC 262 5 reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and others Vs. Rajesh Agarwal3. 10. In these circumstances, the impugned proceedings vide Computer No.A1/57729/2025, dated 26.09.2025, issued by the 2nd respondent/District Endowments Officer, Endowments Department, Kakinada District, Kakinada, are hereby set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondent authorities to initiate proceedings, strictly in accordance with the Act No.30 of 1987, by following the principles of natural justice. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 13.10.2025 SRT 3 (2023) 6 SCC 1 6 40 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.27931 of 2025 Date: 13.10.2025 SRT