APHC010138502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3545] THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL NO: 291/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent above-named appellant begs to present the appeal challenging the order of the learned single judge in WP. No. 1770 of 2025, Dt-28-02-2025 Between: 1. V. V. RAMANA MURTHY,, S/O CHALAPATI RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O 28-306, CIRCLEPETA, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (ENDOWMENTS) SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (VIGILANCE. 1V1) SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 4. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA. 5. K RAMACHANDRA MOHAN, S/O VENKATANARAYANA MURTHY, 2 AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O 407, SIRI ENCLAVE, JAKKAMPUDI CANAL ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 6. SRI VARAHALAKSHMI NARASIMHA SWAMY DEVASTHANAM, SIMHACHALAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. ...RESPONDENT(S): IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to grant STAY of operation of the order dated 28.02.2025 passed in WP. No. 1770 of 2025 by a learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. TURAGA SAI SURYA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. CHINTAPALLI SRINIVAS 2. GP FOR SERVICES II 3. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL No.291 of 2025 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order, dated 28.02.2025 in W.P.No.1770 of 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition for convenience. 3. The case of the writ petitioner is that: The 5th respondent joined as Assistant Commissioner in the Endowments Department in the year 2000 and is presently working as Additional Commissioner-II. He served as the Executive Officer of Sri Varahalakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple from 04.07.2007 to 01.09.2008 and from 02.03.2013 to 18.08.2019. He also worked as the Executive Officer of Sri MANSAS Trust, Vizianagaram for about 4 years in different points of time. During his tenure, the 5th respondent committed several irregularities. The 4th respondent surrendered him to the Government vide proceedings No.E1/COE15021, dated 29.06.2021. Later, a 3-men committee was appointed to enquire into the illegalities. The 3-men committee submitted a report, dated 16.07.2021 to the Commissioner pointing out irregularities/ illegalities committed by the 5th respondent. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.494 Revenue (VIG.IV) Department, dated 06.08.2021 suspending the 5th respondent, pending enquiry. The 5th respondent filed 4 W.P.No.18251 of 2021 wherein an interim suspension of the suspension proceedings, dated 06.01.2022 was granted. The 5th respondent was reinstated as Additional Commissioner-II of the Endowments Department. The 1st respondent issued U.O.Note No.2688771/SC.A/A1/2025, dated 21.01.2025 requesting the 2nd respondent to place the 5th respondent as in-charge to the post of Commissioner, Endowments until further orders. Later, by way of amendment, the appointment of the 5th respondent as Commissioner, Endowments, Full-Additional Charge, was assailed. Therefore, the petitioner filed writ petition for issuance of writ of Quo Warranto against the 5th respondent calling upon him to quit the office of Full Additional Charge of Commissioner, Endowments, appointed in pursuance of U.O.Note No.2688771/SC.A/A1/2025, dated 21.01.2025 issued by the 1st respondent, since the appointment was made contrary to Articles 14, 21 and 26 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned Single Judge of this Court after having detailed consideration of the issue involved in the writ petition and upon careful examination of the material available on record, dismissed the writ petition by order, dated 28.02.2025 with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the petitioner preferred the present writ appeal. 5. Heard Sri Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant; Sri Srinivas Dammalapati, learned Advocate General appearing for the official respondents and Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel 5 on behalf of Sri Bodduluri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned single Judge gravely erred in observing that the appellant should have made an averment or provided any explanation in the affidavit regarding the source and manner in which the documents, particularly, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3, were obtained and in the absence of such an averment, the writ petition amounts to nothing more than proxy litigation. He would further contend that it is a settled principle that the source or manner in which the documents were procured need not be disclosed and the test for admissibility of evidence, which is whether the evidence is relevant to the matters in issue. He would submit that the learned single Judge should have noted that neither the Government nor the aggrieved party i.e., 5th respondent, filed counter affidavit raising the said allegation as part of the record, nor did they raise this contention during the course of arguments and even the aspect of the source of the exhibits was not even fall for consideration during the arguments. He would further submit that all the material annexed to the writ petition are public documents. The documents pertaining to the appointment of 5th respondent are available in online and in regard to the report of the 3-men committee was already filed before this Court as part of the material in a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.18251 of 2021. He would further contend that the learned single Judge gravely erred in observing that there was no allegation of disqualification under the statue or the applicable rules. He would submit that the disqualification arises from the 6 fact the surrender proceedings against the 5th respondent were still in force, making his appointment as Commissioner a direct conflict of interest. Finally, he would submit that the appointment of 5th respondent violates the well- settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court as well as High Courts and as such the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside and sought to allow the writ appeal. 7. Learned Advocate General appearing for the official respondents and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent would submit that the interim order granted in W.P.No.18251 of 2021, dated 06.01.2022, is nothing to with the 5th respondent appointment as In-Charge of the post of Commissioner, Endowments and the 5th respondent was appointed as Additional Commissioner-II by G.O.Rt.No.186, dated 21.03.2022 and since then he has been discharging the duties. They would further contend that the petitioner is disqualified to be appointed as Commissioner (In-charge) and the petitioner failed to point out any disqualification of the 5th respondent to be appointed as an in-charge to the post of the Commissioner, Endowments. They finally submit that the writ of quo warranto itself is not maintainable and accordingly, they sought to dismiss the writ appeal. 8. This Court gave anxious consideration to the submissions made by respective counsel appearing on either side and carefully examined the material available on record. 9. As per the material available on record, there is no dispute with respect to the admitted facts of the appointment of the 5th respondent as 7 Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department in the year 2000 and till reinstatement of the 5th respondent as Additional Commissioner-II vide G.O.Rt.No.186, dated 21.03.2022. There is also no dispute with regard to 1st respondent issued U.O.Note No.2688771/SC.A/A1/2025, dated 21.01.2025 requesting the Revenue (Endowments) Department to place the 5th respondent as In-charge for the post of Commissioner, Endowments until further orders and issuance of G.O.Rt.No.35, Revenue (Endowment-I) Department, dated 24.01.2025 wherein the 5th respondent was kept in Full Additional Charge to the post of Commissioner, Endowments until further orders. 10. While deciding the writ petition, the learned single Judge of this Court has considered two points for consideration which are extracted herein under: (1) Whether the writ petitioner had the locus to file the writ petition? (2) Whether the 5th respondent suffered any disqualification to hold the post of Commissioner, Endowments in Full Additional Charge, as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987? 11. In the light of the decision in Mocherla Venkataraya Sarma vs. Y. Sivarama Prasad1, the learned single Judge held that the writ petitioner can maintain a writ of quo-warranto and got locus. While considering the second issue with respect to whether 5th respondent suffered any disqualification to hold the post of Commissioner, Endowments in Full Additional Charge, the learned single Judge has examined Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu 1 AIR 1961 AP 250 8 Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “Act”) and the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Service Rules, 2002 (for short “Rules”) and the qualifications for appointment of Commissioner provided under Section 4 of the Act and Rules made thereunder held that the 5th respondent who has been discharging his duties as Additional Commissioner, Endowments, appointed to discharge duties as In-Charge of Commissioner, Endowments is qualified, prima facie is not disqualified. The learned single Judge also has considered whether the writ of quo warranto can be issued in view of the fact that the 5th respondent did not suffer any disqualification for appointment as In-Charge Commissioner of Endowments Department and the opined which is extracted herein under: “Thus, a conspectus of the above expressions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the jurisdiction of the High Court is limited and a writ can be issued when an appointment is made contrary to the statutory rules and the holder of the office doesn’t qualify or suffers disqualification. The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the Government, in the choice of the person to be appointed, so long as the person chosen possesses the prescribed qualification and is otherwise eligible for appointment. The jurisdiction of the High Court is limited and can only be issued when a person holding the public office lacks eligibility criteria and when the appointment is contrary to statutory rules. The basic purpose of, quo warranto, is to confer jurisdiction on the constitutional courts to see that public office shall not held by usurper without legal authority.” 12. The learned single Judge also held that in the absence of any explanation in the affidavit filed in the writ petition regarding the source and securing the documents filed along with writ petition as Ex.P.1 to 9 Ex.P.3 came to an opinion that the writ petition is nothing short proxy litigation and someone else is behind the institution of the writ petition. 13. Having considered the submissions of the respective counsel and perusal of the material available on record including the order under appeal, we could not find any averment in the affidavit filed along with the writ petition to demonstrate that the 5th respondent did not possess required qualifications for appointment as the Commissioner, Endowments in Full Additional Charge. Admittedly, the 5th respondent who is discharging duties in the cadre of Additional Commissioner, Endowments is eligible as per Section 3(2) and Section 4 of the Act and Rule 3 of the Rules. 14. With regard to securing the documents which were filed along with the writ petition as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 also, there is no any whisper/explanation/ averment for source and securing the said documents either by way of Right to Information Act or by any other source known to law. If he obtained those documents, if it is available in OnLine or the report of the 3-Men Committee is part of the material in W.P.No.18251 of 2021, he has to state as to whether it is obtained by way of certified copies from the Court. Nothing is stated how he secured those documents. As such, the learned single Judge rightly concluded that the writ petition is proxy filed at the instance of another, as the writ petitioner is not competing for the post. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, in our considered view, there is no illegality or infirmity in well reasoned order passed by the learned single Judge and interference into said order is not warranted. The appellant failed to make 10 out any case warranting interference of this Court on facts or law. Hence, the writ appeal is fails and accordingly, it is liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed. 17. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND _________________________________ JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA Dated:13.11.2025 PGR 11 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL No.291 of 2025 Dt.13.11.2025 PGR