IMPORTANT POINT
Public interest litigation can only be entertained at the instance of bonafide litigants. It cannot be permitted to be used by unscrupulous litigants to disguise personal or individual grievances as public interest litigations.
2. Necessity for recording reasons is the fundamental to the administration of justice.

JUDGMENT

Surinder Singh Nijjar, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad rendered in Writ Petition No. 24124 of 2009 dated 28th April, 2010 whereby the High Court set aside the extension granted to the appellant as officer on Special Duty in the establishment of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (hereinafter referred to as “the Temple”) till 1st August, 2011.

3. The aforesaid order has been passed in a writ petition styled as a public interest litigation by S. Mangati Gopal Reddy (hereinafter referred to as “respondent No.1”). Respondent No. 1 claims to be an agriculturist and a staunch devotee of Lord Venkateswara since his childhood. In Paragraph 2 of the affidavit in support of the writ petition, respondent No.1, in order to establish his locus standi to file the public interest litigation stated as under:-

“I am an Agriculturist. I am a staunch devotee of Lord Venkateswara since my childhood. I regularly visit the temple to offer my prayers to God. I also have donated to the temple as per my capacity. I am a citizen of this country and a Hindu by religion. I am a native and a resident of Tirupathi. I have come to know certain misdeeds, discrepancies, Mismanagement of the T.T.D. Funds by some vested interests. As a citizen of India and also as a staunch devotee of Lord Venkateswara, it is my bounden duty to bring the said facts, which have come to my knowledge, to the notice of this Honourable Court for appropriate directions of this Honourble Court. I also submit that I have no personal interest in filing the above writ affidavit nor I have any enmity with the persons whose details are furnished hereunder and against the persons certain directions are sought in this Writ Petition. This Writ Petition is being filed in the larger interest of the public.”

4. He has further pleaded that the Temple was established as a result of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Act, 1932 (in short ‘TTD Act’). The aforesaid Act was followed in 1933 by a special Act in 1951 whereby the administration of the Temple was under the control of the Andhra Pradesh Government. According to respondent No.1, since the enactment of the Hindu Charitable and Religious Institutions Act, 1989, the management and administration vests in the Board called “TTD Board” constituted under Section 96 of the aforesaid Act.

5. It was further the case of the respondent that the management and administration of the Temple is controlled by the statutory provisions of the 1989 Act and the rules made thereunder. However, the responsible officers of the TTD Board have acted in violation of the rules framed under the aforesaid Act. He further stated that certain discrepancies and misdeeds have been brought to the notice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by way of various writ petitions. The writ petition was filed to bring to the notice of the Court various misappropriations and embezzlement of funds. There is an ongoing controversy with regard to embezzlement of funds and, in particular, loss of 300 gold dollars each weighing 5 gms. since August, 2008. It was further the case of the respondent that the actions of the appellant have been doubted in the case of missing gold dollars as he was Bokkasam Incharge and Parpathedar of the Temple. His name was primarily mentioned in the reports of two IPS officers, who had conducted two separate vigilance reports. These reports categorically recommended that the appellant should not be continued in office. In spite of such recommendations of the vigilance officer, the appellant had been continued in service.

6. According to respondent No.1, the appellant retired on 31st July, 2006. Since then, he has been given five years extension in the Temple. According to the respondent, the services of the appellant have been extended for ulterior motives. Respondent makes a grievance that the services of the appellant have been extended as if there is no ot