INTHEHIGHCOURTOFANDHRAPRADESH::AMARAVATI

(SpecialOriginalJurisdiction)

FRIDAY.THETWENTIETH DAYOFDECEMBER

TWOTHOUSAND ANDTWENTYFOUR

PRESENT

THEHON’BLEDRJUSTICEK.MANMADHA RAO

WRITPETITIONNos:17993AND22803OF2013

WRITPETITIONNO:17993OF2013

Between:

SreeVyasasramam,Yerpedu,ChittoorDistrict,RepbyitsPeetadhipathiSri

ParipoornandhagiriSwamy

...PETITIONER

AND

1.TheCommissioner,EndowmentDepartmentTilakRoad,Hyderabad.

2.TheRegionalJointCommissioner,MultiZone-II,Endowment

DepartmentTirupathi,ChittoorDistrict.

3.TheAssistantCommissionerandExecutiveOfficer,SriBoyakonda

GangammaTempleDiguvapalle,ChittoorDistrict.

...RESPONDENTS

PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionofIndiaprayingthat

thecircumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmay

bepleasedtoissueaWrit,OrderorDirection,moreparticularlyoneinthe

natureofWRITOFMANDAMUS,declaringtheProceedingsofthe1

RespondenthereininMemoinRc.No.D2/22379/2013,dated20.06.2013,

wherein3'^^RespondenthereinisappointedasaFitPerson/In-Chargeto

administerthePetitioner/AashramamwithoutgivingNotice/Opportunity

asillegal,arbitrary,withoutjurisdiction,violativeofPrinciplesofNatural

Justice,contrarytotheprovisionsofTheA.P.CharitableandHindu

ReligiousInstitutionsandEndowmentsAct,1987andviolativeofArticle26

oftheConstitutionofIndiaandconsequentlysetasidethe

in

St

same.

I.A.NO:1OF2013(WPMP.NO:21914OF2013)

PetitionunderSection151CPCprayingthatinthecircumstances

statedintheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthewritpetition,theHighCourt

maybepleasedtosuspendtheoperationofMemoinRc.No.

D2/22379/2013,dated20.06.2013issuedbythe1®'Respondentherein.

I.A.NO:1OF2014(WVMP. NO:1018OF20141

Between;

1.TheCommissioner,EndowmentDepartmentTilakRoad,Hyderabad.

2.TheRegionalJointCommissioner,MultiZone-II,Endowment

DepartmentTirupathi,ChittoorDistrict.

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

AND

1.SreeVyasasramam,Yerpedu,ChittoorDistrict,RepbyitsPeetadhipathi

SriParipoornandhagiriSwamy

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

2.TheAssistantCommissionerandExecutiveOfficer,SriBoyakonda

GangammaTempleDiguvapalle,ChittoorDistrict.

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

(Respondent/RespondentNo.2notnecessarypartyinthis

petition)

PetitionunderSection151CPCprayingthatinthecircumstances

statedintheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybe

pleasedvacatetheinterimordersgrantedinWPMPNo.21914of2013in

W.P.No.17993of2013dt:25-06-2013.

CounselforthePetitioner:SRIP.RAJASEKHAR

CounselfortheRespondents:GPFORENDOWMENTS

f

WRITPETITION NO:22803OF2013

Between:

SreeVyasasramam,Yerpedu,ChittoorDistrict,RepbyitsPeetadhipathiSri

ParipoornandhagiriSwamy.

...PETITIONER

AND

1.TheCommissioner,EndowmentDepartment,TilakRoad,Hyderabad.

2.TheRegionalJointCommissioner,MultiZone-11,Endowment

DepartmentTirupathi,ChittoorDistrict.

3.SriE.SrinivasRao,RegionalJointCommissionerMultiZone-11,

EndowmentDepartmentTirupathi,ChittoorDistrict.

4.TheAndhraBank,YerpeduBranch,ChittoorDistrict,RepbyitsBranch

ManagerYerpedu,YerpeduMandal,ChittoorDistrict.

...RESPONDENTS

PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionofIndiaprayingthatin

thecircumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmay

bepleasedtoissueaWrit,OrderorDirection,moreparticularlyoneinthe

natureofWRITOFMANDAMUS, todeclaretheactionoftherespondents

throughProceedingsinRc.No.B3/2256/2013,dated15.07.2013issuedby

theRespondentNo.2hereinasalsotheiractionofinstructing4th

Respondent/BanktostoptheoperationofthePetitioner'sBankAccount

bearingA/c.No.065610011000002withoutgivinganynoticeoropportunity

toPetitionerasillegal,arbitrary,withoutjurisdiction,unconstitutional,

violativeofPrinciplesofNaturalJusticeandcontrarytotheprovisionsof

TheA.P.CharitableandHinduReligiousInstitutionsEndowments Act,1987

andArticle26oftheConstitutionofIndiaandconsequently

directthe

RespondentsnottointerferewiththeaffairsofthePetitioner/Aashramam

inanymannerincludingoperationofitsBankAccountintheinterestof

justice.

r

I.A.NO:1OF2013(WPMP.NO:27975OF20131

underSection151CPCprayingthatinthecircumstances

statedintheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthewrit

petition,theHighCourtmay

DIRECTtheRespondentshereintoallowthePetitioner

/

tooperateitsBankAccountspendingdisposalofthe

present

Petition

bepleasedto

Aashramam

WritPetition.

CounselforthePetitioner:SRIP.RAJASEKHAR

CounselfortheRespondentNos.1&2:GPFORENDOWMENTS

CounselfortheRespondentNo.3:NONEAPPEARED

CounselfortheRespondentNo.4:SRIV.RAGHU

TheCourtmadethefollowing:COMMONORDER

1

*HIGHCOURTOFANDHRA PRADESH ::AMARAVATI

+WRITPETITIONNos.17993&22803/2013

WPNo.17993/20213

Between.:

#SreeVyasasramam,Yerpedu

ChittoorDistrict,rep.bitsPeetadhipathi

SriParipoornanandhagiriSwamy

...Petitioner

And

$TheCommissioner,EndowmentDepartment,TilakRoad,

Hyderabadand2others.

....Respondents

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON20.12.2024

THEHON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

1.WhetherReportersofLocalnewspapers

maybeallowedtoseetheJudgments?

Yes-

2.WhetherthecopiesofjudgmentmaybemarkedtoLaw

Reporters/Journals

Yes-

3.WhetherTheirLadyship/Lordshipwishtoseethefair

copyoftheJudgment?

Yes-

2

*THEHON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

+WRIT PETITION Nos.17993 &22803/2013

%20.12.2024

WPNo.17993/2013 :

#SreeVyasasramam,Yerpedu,

ChittoorDistrict,rep.bitsPeetadhipathi

SriParipoornanandhagiriSwamy

...Petitioner

And

$TheCommissioner,EndowmentDepartment,TilakRoad,

Hyderabadand2others.

....Respondents

!Counsel forthePetitioner: SriP.Rajasekhar

!CounselforRespondents;

G.PforEndowments

<Gist;

>HeadNote:

?Casesreferred;1.1997(1)ALT451

2.2006(2)ALT588

1

APHC010354582013

INTHEHIGHCOURT OFANDHRA PRADESH

ATAMARAVATI

(SpecialOriginalJurisdiction)

[3310]

FRIDAY,THETWENTIETH DAYOFDECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND ANDTWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THEHONOURABLE DRJUSTICE KMANMADHA RAO

WRITPETITION NO:17993/2013 &22803/2013

WPNo.17993/2013:

Between:

...PETITIONER

SreeVyasasramam

AND

...RESPONDENT(S)TheCommissioner andOthers

Counsel forthePetitioner:

1.PRAJASEKHAR

CounselfortheRespondent{S):

1.GPFORENDOWMENTS

TheCourtmadethefollowing:

COMMON ORDER :

Astheissueinvolvedinboththewritpetitionsisoneandthesame,and

therefore,theyarebeingtakenupforhearingaswellasdisposedofbywayof

thisCommon Order.

Sincethefactsinboththewritpetitionsaresimilarandidentical.2.

thereforeWPNo.17993of2013istakenasleadcase,andthefactstherein

hereinafterwillbereferredtoforconvenience.

3.Brieffactsofthe

arethat,thePetitioner/Aashramamislocatedin

anextentofAc.45.00centsatYerpeduVillageandMandal,

activitiesundertakenbytheAashramam/Math

case

ChittoorDistrict.The

arebeingappreciatedandno

exceptionorcomplaintismadebydisciplesordonors

activitiesofPetitioner/Aashramam.

orbeneficiariesofthe

Itisstatedthat,earlier.OneSri

MunirathnamNaidu,whohimselfstyledasRamananda

Swamy,who

aftertheconstructionworkatGo-Garbham,Tirumala

waslooking

belongingtothisPetitioner/

rupeesfromdevoteesandswallowedthe

Swamyashemisappropriated

ininterferingwith

thepetitioner/Ashramamfiledsuits

personsfrominterfering.Havingfailedinhisattempts,

someunknownpersonstocomplain

-imaginaryallegations.

1®'Respondent,theofficialsofPolice

conductedenquiriesandheldthatthe

But,againthesaidpersonshavefileda

theHon’bleHumanRights

calledforreportfromthe

asperthedirectionsofthe1®'respondent,the

,on10.02.2010hasconducted

Aashramam,collectedlakhsof

ThenthepetitionerremovedthesaidRamananda

thedonations.Later,asthesaidRamanadhaSwamystartedI

theadministrationofPetitioner/Aashramam

same.

andrestrainedthesaid

thesaidRamanandaSwamyencouraged

againstPetitioner/Aashramamwithfalseandbaselessi

Later,asperthedirectionsofthe

DepartmentandEducationDepartment,

allegationsarebaselessandincorrect,

petitionwithsamesetofallegationsbefore

Commission.Subsequently,theHon’bleCommission

Respondenthereinandlater

InspectorofEndowmentDepartment,Tirupathi

enquiryandsubmitted

areporttotheHon'bleCommission

videLetterin

•Whileso,againthesamesetof

andinspiteofearlier

Rc.No.H2/2178/2010,dated11.08.2010

allegationswereleveledagainstthePetitioner/Aashramam

3

enquiryreports,the1®*Respondentappointedthe2"'*RespondentasanEnquiry

Officerandthe2"''Respondentcompletedtheenquiry,exceptsubmittingreport.

Atthattime,the2”'^Respondenthereinexpressedhisinabilitytoconcludethe

enquiryashereceivedthreateningcallsfromthepersonswhomadebaseless

allegationsagainstthePetitioner/Aashramam.Accordingly,the1®'Respondent,

contrarytoprovisionsofEndowmentsAct,appointedanotherEnquiryOfficerand

directedtostartenquiryafresh,throughProceedingsinRc.No.B1/47/2013,

dated22.01.2013.Inviewofthecircumstances,thepetitionerhaspreferredWP

No.2245of2013beforethisCourt,andthisCourt,videorderdated01.02.2013,

afterconsideringthematerialonrecordandalsoconsideringthefactsand

circumstances,hassuspendedtheoperationoftheimpugnedorderandthe3^'^

respondentwasrefrainedfromproceedinganyfurtherinthematter.

Whilethematterstoodthus,the1®‘Respondentthroughimpugned

proceedingsappointedthe3^^*RespondenthereinasFitPerson/In-chargeofthe

Petitioner/Aashramamanddirectedtoassumethecompletechargeof

administrationofthePetitioner/Aashramam. Thesumandsubstance ofthe

impugnedorderisthattherearecertainallegationsontheSecretaryofthe

Petitioner/Aashramam,viz.,S.AmaranathaReddyandbasingonareportofthe

RegionalJointCommissioner/2^^Respondentherein,the1®‘Respondent

appointedthe3^^^RespondentasFitPersontosetrighttheadministrationofthe

Petitioner/Aashramamandalsodirectedthe3'^'*Respondenthereintoassume

But,the1®‘respondent

hereinhasnostatutorypowerorjurisdictiontointerferewiththeaffairsofthe

Petitioner/Aashramam.The3'^'respondentintheabsenceofMathadhipathiof

thecompletechargeofthePetitioner/Aashramam.

'-A

4

■

thepetitioner/Aashramam,whowasonreligioustour,

enteredintothePetitioner’s

Ashramampremisesandhehimselfassumedthechargeandinterferingwiththe

daytodayadministrationofthepetitionerAashramam.Questioningthevery

appointmentofthe3'"^respondent,thepresentwritpetitioncametobefiled.

4.Thepleadingswhicharecitedbythepetitioner

inWPNo.17993of

2013,thesameareadoptedbythepetitionerinanotherwritpetitioni.e..

W.P.No.22803 of2013.

5.ThisCourtvideorderdated25.06.2013,whileissuingRuleNisi,has

grantedinterimsuspensionasprayedforinWPMPNo.21914

of2013inWP

No.17993of2013.

6.Videorderdated01.08.2013inWPMP No.27975of2013inWP

No.22803of2013thisCourt,whileissuingRuleNisihasgrantedinterimdirection

asprayedfor.

7.Thecounteraffidavithasbeenfiledbythe1respondent

inWP

No.17993of2013.Whiledenyingtheallegationsmadeinthepetition,submits

that,the2"''respondentsubmittedareporttothe1®‘respondentvidehisletter

dated05.06.2013regardingmis-managementofSriVyasasramam,Yerapadu

(V&M)ChittoorDistrictandrequestedtoavoidbadreputationoftheAshramamin

theeyesofpublicandtostopsuchallegationsagainstthemanagementafter

enteringSriAmarnathReddyasSecretaryintheadministration

oftheInstitution

andsuggestedtopostanOfficerasFitPersonwithchequepowerimmediatelyto

lookaftertheadministrationoftheAshramamwithoutanycomplications.Basing

onthereportofthe2"'^respondent,1®‘respondent

issuedordersvideRc.No.D2/

5

.

22379/2013,dated20.06.2013appointingthe3^^*respondenthereinasFit

PersontoSriVyasasramam,Yerpedu(V&M),ChittoorDistricttosetrightthe

administrationoftheAshramamuntilfurtherorders.Hence,thePetitionercannot

questiontheproceedingsofthe1®*respondenthereinastheywereissuedinthe

interestofadministrationandtheordersissuedbythe1strespondent

perfectlyvalid.Thecontentionofthepetitionerthatnonoticewasissuedtohim

beforeissuingtheimpugnedproceedingsisnotcorrect.From2010onwards,the

concernedInspectorandAsst.Commissionerandthe2^'*respondentherein

issuedseveralnoticestoconductenquiryagainstthemis-managementofthe

institutionontheallegationsfromthepublicaswellaspublicrepresentatives.

But,thepetitionerhasnotco-operatedwiththeDepartmentOfficialsandfailedto

furnishtheaccountsandevadedtoproducetherecordsonthepretextthatthe

Secretaryisnotavailableorhospitalizedetc.,asitisaseriousandamajorissue

intheDistrict,the1®‘respondentissuedtheimpugnedordersonlyintheinterest

ofpublicserviceandbetteradministration.Inviewoftheabovefacts,prayedto

dismissthewritpetitionastherearenomerits.

are

8.ThecounteraffidavithasbeenfiledbytherespondentsNo.2and3in

WPNo.22803of2013denyingalltheallegationsmadeinthepetitions.While

adoptingtheavermentsmadeinthecounterofthe1®'respondent,interalia,

contendedthat,asperscheduleofenquiry,the2"'^respondenthasproceededto

thesubjectinstitutionon3.11.2012enquiredintothematterandalsorecorded

thestatementsofSriParipoornandhagiriSwamy.Atthisjuncture,beforethe

PrintmediaSriGaliRavialongwithhisfollowersexpressedtheviewthatthe

enquirybythe2"'"^respondentisbiased.Hence,the2"'^respondentrequested

the1respondenttoappointanyotherofficertoconduct

theenquiry.Basingon

thesaidrequest,the1®'respondenthasappointedSriS.S.ChandraSekhar

Azad,JointCommissioner&ExecutiveOfficer.SriTirupatammaAmmavari

Temple,Penuganchiprolu,asEnquiryOfficervideinRc.No.B5/33454/2012-1,

dated19.12.2012.Buttostallthesaidenquiry,SriParipoornandhagiriSwamy

alongwithSriM.AmaranthReddyhavefiledW.P.No.2245of2013beforethis

Courtandobtainedinterimorderson01.02.2013.Itisfurtherstatedthatthe

petitionerfailedtosubmitmonthlyreceipts&Chargesstatementandalsofailed

topaystatutorypayments.Underthesaidcompellingcircumstancestoprotect

theinterestofsubjectinstitution,thebankoperationshavebeenstopped.The

contentionofthepetitioneristhatnonoticewas

servedonhimbeforepassing

theimpugnedorderwaspassedalsoholdsnowater,sincealreadythe2

respondentandtheInspectorEndowmentsDepartment,Tirupatiissuednotices

visitedthesubjectAashramamseveraltimesandrequestedforaccountsfor

verification,butatonnooccasion,thepetitionercooperatedwiththeEndowment

DepartmentOfficialsandfurnishedaccounts,butevadedtoproducethe

thepretextthattheManagerSriM.AmarnathaReddy,isnotavailableor

hospitalized,henceunderthesaidcircumstances,the1®‘respondenttoprotect

theinterestoftheinstitution,issuedtheimpugnedorders.Itisfurtherstatedthat

the3'^^respondenthasnopersonalinterestintheaffairsoftheAshramamand

hasbeendischargingonlytheofficialdutiesas2'’^'respondent.Andalsoasper

instructionsofthe1®‘respondentonly,hevisitedthepetitionerAshramamand

conductedenquirystrictlyasperrules.Thereforearrayingthe2"'^respondentin

nd

same on

7

nd

thepersonalcapacityas2

Therefore,prayedtodismissthewritpetitions.

respondentisunwarrantedandunjustified.

9.

HeardSriP.Rajasekhar,learnedcounselappearingforthe

petitioner/AashramamandlearnedGovernmentPleaderforEndowments

appearingfortherespondents.

10.Onhearing,learnedcounselforthepetitionerwhilereiteratingthe

avermentsmadeinthepetitions,contendedthat,theimpugnedactionofthe

respondentinappointingthe3"'^respondentascompleteIn-chargeof

AdministratorofthePetitioner/Aashramamamountstointerferewiththesecular

administrationofthepetitioner/aashramam,anditisinviolationofArticle226of

theConstitutionofIndia.Hesubmitsthat,undertheschemeofAct30of1987,

the1®'respondentcannotexercisehisgeneralpowerwhichisalwayscontrolled

andregulatedbyotherprovisionsoftheAct,inparticular.ChapterVoftheAct30

of1987.Therefore,theimpugnedorderpassedbythe1®‘respondentisonly

withoutjurisdiction.Learnedcounselforthepetitioner,oninstructions,would

submitthat,therighttomanagetheMathisafundamentalright,guaranteed

underArticle26oftheConstitutionofIndiaandthatrightcannotbeabdicatedor

rd

waivedevenwiththeconsentofthepetitioner.Hefurthersubmitsthatthe3

respondentevenintheabsenceofMathadhipathiofthepetitioner/Ashramam,

whowasonreligioustour,enteredintothepetitioner/Aashramampremisesand

hehimselfassumedthechargeandinterferingwiththedaytodayadministration

ofthepetitioner/Aashramam.Thepetitionerisentitledtoadministertheaffairsof

8

m/

theashramamandtherefore,theveryappointmentof3"^respondentishighly

illegalandarbitrary.

11.Tosupporthiscontentions,learnedcounselforthepetitionershas

placedrelianceonH.H.JagadguruChannaBasavaMahaswamy,

Matadhipathi,SriGaviMathSamasthanam,Uravakonda,AnantapurDistrict

vs.CommissionerofEndowments,AndhraPradesh,Hyderabadand

others\whereintheHighCourtofJudicature,AndhraPradeshatHyderabad

washeldthat;

TheEndowmentCommissionerbyhisorderdated28-12-1991impugnedinW.P.No.2825of1992

appointedtheDeputyCommissioner,Endowments,KurnooltobeinchargeoftheaffairsoftheGavimath

andbyhisorderdt.10-8-1992impugnedinW.P,No.1496/93permittedthethirdrespondenthereinto

performonlyreligiousandspiritualfunctionsoftheMatadhipathi.Inthelatterorder,theEndowment

Commissionerhasfurtherdirectedthatthethirdrespondentshallnothaveanyrighttointerfereinthe

secularadministrationofthemath.Theeffectofthese

twoordersistodetachthepersonalbeneficial

interestoftheMatadhipathisanctionedbycustoms,usagesandSampradayamsfromthatofficeand

therebyreducingthestatusoftheMatadhipathitothatofapoojariinatemple.TheEndowment

Commissionerhasdonethisdespitehebeingofthetentativeopinionthatthethirdrespondent

validlynominatedbythepredecessorMatadhipathiashisUttaradhikariandhewasfunctioningassuch

onthedateofdemiseofthepredecessorMatadhipathi.AMatadhipathihasnotonlydudestodischarge

inconnectionwiththeendowmentbuthehasapersonalinterestofabeneficialcharacterwhichis

sanctionedbycustomandSampradayam.TheSupremeCourtintheTheCommissioner. Hindu

ReligiousEndowments.MadrasVs.SriLakshmindraThirthaSwamiarofSriShirurMutt.,observed

paras11and12asunder:

ThusintheconceptionofMahantship,asinShebaitship,boththeelementsofofficeand

property,ofdutiesandpersonalinterestareblendedtogetherandneithercanbedetachedfromthe

other.ThepersonalorbeneficialinterestoftillMahantintheendowmentsattachedtoaninstitutionis

manifestedinhislargepowersofdisposalandadministrationandhisrighttocreatederivativetenuresin

respectofendowedproperties;andtheseandotherrightsofasimilarcharacterinvesttheofficeofthe

Mahantwiththecharacterofproprietaryrightwhich,thoughanomaloustosomeextent,isstillagenuine

legalright.

was

11

Itistruethatthebeneficialinterestwhichheenjoysisappurtenanttohisdutiesandasheisin

chargeofapublicinstitution,reasonablerestrictionscanalwaysbeplaceduponhisrightsintheinterest

ofthepublic.Buttherestrictionswouldceasetobereasonableiftheyarecalculatedtomakehimunfitto

dischargethedutieswhichheiscalledupontodischarge.AMahanf'sdutyisnotsimplytomanagethe

temporalitiesofaMath.HeistheheadandsuperiorofspiritualfraternityandthepurposeofMath,isto

encourageandfosterspiritualtrainingbymaintenanceofacompetentlineofteacherswhocouldimpart

religiousinstructionstodisciplesandfollowersoftheMathandtrytostrengthenthedoctrinesofthe

particularschoolororder,ofwhichtheyprofesstobeadherents.Thispurposecannotbeservedifthe

restrictionsarcsuchaswouldbringtheMatadhipathidowntothelevelofaservantunderaState

department.Itisfromthisstandpointthatthereasonablenessoftherestrictionsshouldbejudged.”

12,

Sections52,53and54specificallydealwithfillingoftemporaryandpermanentvacanciesin

theofficeoftheMatadhipathi.Thegeneralpowersofsuperintendenceandcontrolgrantedtothe

EndowmentCommissioneru/s8oftheActaresubjecttotheotherprovisionsoftheAct.Inotherwords,

1997(1)ALT451

9

thepowerghrantedtotheEndowmentCommissioneru/s8aresubjecttotheprovisionsofSections

52,53and54oftheAct.TheprovisionsofSection8aregeneralprovisionswhereastheprovisionsof

Sections52,53and54arespecialprovisions.WhenanActcontainsageneralenactmentrelatingtothe

wholesubjectmatterofthestatute,andalsoaspecificandparticularenactmentrelatingtocertain

specialmatters,thegeneralenactmentshouldyieldtotheparticularorspecificenactment.Since

Sections52,53and54dealspecificallywithfillingoftemporaryandpermanentvacanciesintheofficeof

Matadhipathi,theEndowmentCommissionerisrequiredtoactunderthoseprovisionsonlywithinthe

limitationsspecifiedinthosesectionsandhecannotresorttothegeneralprovisionscontainedu/s8of

theAct.

(ii)Learnedcounselforthepetitionerhasalsorelieduponanotherdecision

reportedinH.H.ArjunDossMahant,DiscipleofGuruDevenderDass,Sri

Swamy HathiramjiMath,Tirumala,Tirupativ.Commissioner of

Endowments,EndowmentDepartment,Hyderabadandothers^.

12.

Learnedcounselforthepetitionerwhilerelyingupon

theabove

decision,submitsthat,undertheschemeofAct30of1987the1®*respondent

cannotexercisehisgeneralpowerwhichisalwayscontrolledandregulatedby

St

otherprovisionsoftheAct.Therefore,theimpugnedorderpassedbythe1

respondentisliabletobesetasideandhencerequeststhisCourttopass

appropriateorders.

13.Ontheotherhand,learnedGovernmentPleaderappearing

forthe

respondentsreiteratedtheavermentsmadeinthepetitionandopposedfor

allowingthewritpetitions.Hefurthersubmitsthat,the3'^^respondenthasno

personalinterestintheaffairsoftheAshramamandhasbeendischargingonly

theofficialdutiesas2"'*respondent.Hefurthersubmitsthat,asperinstructions

ofthe1®‘respondent,the2'^^respondentvisitedthepetitioner/ashramamand

conductedenquirystrictlyasperrules.AsperprovisionsofSection139,the

Commissioner,AdditionalCommissioner,RegionalJointCommissioner,Deputy

^2006(2)ALT588

10 J».

Commissioner oranAssistantCommissioner shallbeentitledtoenteratanytime

between09.00AMto06.00PM,anypremiseoftheinstitution

orEndowment and

toinspectinanypublicofficeanyrecord,registerorotherdocumentorany

movableorimmovablepropertyrelatingtoacharitableorreligiousinstitutionor

endowment.Hencethe2"^^respondentishavingjurisdiction

overtheAshramam

andcaninsistthedeponenttoproduceaccountsandrecordsforverificationby

issuingnoticewithintheambitofaboveprovisions.

Learned Governmetn

Pleadermainlycontendedthatinviewoftheinterim

orderofthisCourtdated

01.08.2013thepetitionerdeponenthaddrawnlakhsofrupeeswithoutsubmitting

thedetailsoftheexpenditure,asalreadysubmittedabovetilldate,thedeponent

hadnotsubmittedproperbudgetproposalsorgiventherecordscalleduponfor

verification.

14.LearnedGovernmentPleaderfurthersubmitsthat,thecontentionof

thepetitionerthatasperchapterVofA.P.C&HR.1&EndowmentsAct1987,no

powersandjurisdictionisvestedin1®‘respondenttoappointanyendowment

officialtoadministertheaffairsofthesubjectinstitution

isdevoidofmerits.

Sections8and55oftheActgiveamplepowertotheRespondentstopass

necessaryordersevenagainstaMutt.Thereforetheorderspassedbythe

Respondentsfromtimetotimearelegal,validandareasperlaw.

abovecircumstances,learnedGovernmentPleaderprayed

todismissthewrit

Underthe

petitions.

15.Onhearingthesubmissionsandonaperusalof

thematerialon

record,thisCourtobservedthat,someantisocial

elementswhoareinimicalto

tv

11

theAsramamhavemadefalseallegationstodefametheAshramam andHis

Onaperusaloftheimpugnedproceedings,itis

observedthat,therearecertainallegationsontheSecretaryofthe

petitioner/Ashramamandbasingonareportofthe2"^*respondentthe1

respondentappointedthe3'^'*respondentasFitpersontosetrightthe

administrationofthepetitioner/Ashramamandalsodirectedthe3"'^respondentto

assumethecompletechargeofthepetitioner/Aashramam.Moreover,the1

HolinessPeethadhipathi.

St

St

respondenthereinhasnostatutorypowerorjurisdiction

tointerferewiththe

affairsofthePetitioner/Aashramam.

16.ThegeneralpowersofSuperintendenceandcontrolgrantedtothe

Endowment Commissioner underSection89oftheActaresubjecttotheother

provisionsoftheAct.INSection8aresubjecttotheprovisionsofSections52

53and54oftheAct.Sections52,53and54arespecialprovisions.Whenan

Actcontainsageneralenactmentrelatingtothewholesubjectmatterofthe

statute,andalsoaspecificenactmentshouldyieldtotheparticularorspecific

enactment.Sincesections52,53and54dealspecificallywithfilingoftemporary

andpermanentvacanciesintheofficeofMatadhipathi,

theEndowment

Commissionerisrequiredtoactunderthoseprovisionsonlywithinthelimitations

specifiedinthosesectionsandhecannotresorttothegeneralprovisions

containedunderSection8oftheAct.Itiswellsettledthatwhenapublic

authorityexercisesapowerthatpowershouldbetracedtoanauthoritygranted

byLaw.

Jr

12

17.Inviewoftheforegoingdiscussion,thisCourt

isinclinedtoallowthe

writpetitionswhiledeclaringtheimpudentproceedings

inboththewritpetitions

asillegalandarbitrary.

Theimpugned

Accordingly,boththeWritPetitionsareallowed,

proceedingsinboththewritpetitionsareherebyset

aside,

nottointerferewiththeaffairs

18.

Further,the

ofthe

directed

respondents are

includingoperationsofitsBankAccount.

petitioner/Aashramaminanymanner

Thereshallbenoorderastocosts.

Asasequel,allthependingmiscellaneousapplications

shallstand

19.

closed.

SD/-K.TATA RAO

DEPUT^Y^GISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

OneFairCopytotheHON’BLE DR.JUSTICEK.MANMADHA

RAO

(ForHisLordship’skindperusal)

To,

1.TheCommissioner,EndowmentDepartment,Vijayawada.

TheRegionalJointCommissioner,MultiZone-II,Endowment

DepartmentTirupathi,ChittoorDistrict.

TheAssistantCommissionerandExecutiveOfficer,SriBoyakonda

Gangamma TempleDiguvapalle,ChittoorDistrict.

TheBranchManager,AndhraBank,YerpeduBranch,ChittoorDistrict,

Yerpedu,YerpeduMandal,ChittoorDistrict.

OneCCtoSriP.Rajasekhar,Advocate[OPUC]

TwoCCstoGPforEndowments,HighCourtofAndhraPradesh.[OUT]

OneCCtoSriV.Raghu,Advocate(OPUC)

9L.R.Copies.

TheUnderSecretaryUnionofIndia,MinistryofLaw,

Justice&

CompanyAffairs,NewDelhi.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.TheSecretary,A.P.HighCourtAdvocatesAssociation,HighCourtof

A.P.atAmaravati,GunturDistrict.

11.ThreeC.D.Copies.

Cnr

HIGHCOURT

CNR

DATED:20/12/2024

L.R.COPIES

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.17993 and22803of2013

OF

06JAN2Cr5

.CurrentSection

Oc -

mil

:c»«\-rcVs'

ALLOWING THEW.Ps

WITHOUT COSTS