IMPORTANT POINT
Writ petition cannot be maintained in absence of bona fides of the writ petitioners.

Headnote:(a) Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 – Section 80(1)(b) – Statutory notification inviting objections published – None of the writ petitioners filed any objection/suggestion – Government issuing necessary G.O.M. – Property at the relevant time fetching annual income of 100000 – Upon sale it was likely to earn interest income of 600000 per annum – Single Judge approving the sale on ground that prospect of increase in the income as a consequence of the sale is a relevant consideration – Division Bench setting aside judgment of single judge on grounds of appreciation in land value and depreciation in money value ignoring that proper and efficient management of funds can beat inflation – Impugned judgment not sustainable. (Para 17, 19)
       (b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – All original petitioners withdrawing their case – Litigation continued by subsequently impleaded petitioner – Bona fide doubtful – Writ petition no longer maintainable. (Para 20)
       Facts of the case:
       The appellant is an association of the non – gazetted officers of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Sometime in the year 1995, the appellant requested the Executive Officer of the third respondent Temple to sell an extent of 18 acres of land (Survey No.221/1) to provide houses to its members.
       On receipt of the application from the appellant, the Commissioner, Endowments Department, after receiving proposal from the District Collector, advised the Government and sought permission to sell the land in question in favour of the appellants by private negotiations for a consideration of Rs.4,00,000/ – per acre.
       On 14th December 2000, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No.911 purporting the sale of land in question in favour of the appellants as proposed by the Commissioner.
       One year thereafter, a writ petition came to be filed challenging the G.O.Ms. No.911 by 17 persons claiming to be protected tenants of the land in question under the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1956.
       16 of the 17 petitioners eventually prayed for permission to withdraw their petition and the same was allowed vis – à – vis all the petitioners except petitioner no.9.
       The said 9th petitioner also subsequently sought permission from the Court to withdraw the writ petition. However, at that stage, one Dr. S. Parthasarathy filed an impleadment petition which was allowed. A learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by an elaborate order dismissed the writ petition. The newly added petitioner Dr. S. Parthasarathy carried the matter in Letters Patent Appeal.
       In the meanwhile a registered sale deed came to be executed in favour of the appellants herein transferring the property in question. A month thereafter another Writ Petition was filed by somebody who is resident of Hyderabad claiming to be interested in the temple.
       Both the abovementioned Writ Petition and the Letters Patent Appeal were disposed of by the judgment under whereby the judgment of the learned Single Jude was set aside and also G.O.Ms. No.911 was quashed.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned Judgment cannot be sustained.

JUDGMENT

Chelameswar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Aggrieved by the common judgment dated 28th January 2006 in Writ Petition No.8063 of 2004 and Writ Appeal No.1035 of 2004 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, the third respondent therein preferred the instant appeal.

3. By the said judgment, the High Court set aside the judgment dated 3rd March 2004 in Writ Petition No.2563 of 2002 rendered by a learned Single Judge and quashed G.O.Ms. No.911 dated 14.12.2000 issued by the Revenue (Endowments) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh.

4. The appellant is an association of the non – gazetted officers of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Sometime in the year 1995, the appellant herein requested the Executive Officer of the third respondent Temple to sell an extent of 18 acres of land (Survey No.221/1) to provide houses to its members.

5. The Administration of Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments in Andhra Pradesh is regulated by an Act named the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. Section 80 of the Act insofar as is relevant for us reads as under: "Section 80. Alienation of immovable property:

1(a) Any gift, sale, exchange or mortgage of any immovable property belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or religious institution, endowment shall be null and void unless any such transaction, not being a gift, is effected with the prior sanction of the Commissioner.

(b) The Commissioner, may, after publishing in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette the particulars relating to the proposed transaction and inviting any objections and suggestions with respect thereto and considering all objections and suggestions, if any received from the trustee or other person having interest, accord such sanction where he considers that the transaction is –

i) prudent and necessary or beneficial to the institution, or endowment;

ii) in respect of immovable property which is un – economical for the institution or endowment to own and maintain; and

iii) The consideration therefor is adequate and proper.

(c) Every sale of any such immovable property sanctioned by the Commissioner under clause (b) shall be effected by tender – cum – public auction in the prescribed manner subject to the confirmation by the Commissioner within a period prescribed: Provided that the Government may, in the interest of the institution or endowment and for reasons to be recorded therefor in writing, permit the sale of such immovable property, otherwise than by public auction. x x x "

6. It can be seen from the above that normally the sale of any immovable property belonging to any religious institution, such as, the third respondent herein can only be effected by tender – cum – public auction in the prescribed manner and subject to the prior sanction of the Commissioner. Such a prior sanction can be given by the Commissioner if only the Commissioner first makes a publication in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, the particulars relating to the proposed transaction and invites objections and suggestions (if any) and on receipt of the objections or suggestions if the Commissioner comes to the conclusion:

1. it is un – economical for the institution or endowment to own and maintain such immovable property;

2. such a sale is prudent and necessary or beneficial to the institution or endowment;

3. such a sale is likely to fetch adequate and proper consideration for the property.

7. On receipt of the application from the appellant, the Commissioner, Endowments Department (2nd respondent herein) constituted a three – men Committee to inquire and report the probable price that may be secured if the land is sold in public auction. The District Collector, Guntur within whose territorial jurisdiction the temple (third respondent) is located addressed a letter dated 26th March 1998 to the Commissioner, Endowments Department (2nd respondent) suggesting that the Government be addressed for according permission to sell t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2014 Supreme(SC) 266

SUPREME COURT OF INDIADR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.A.P.N.G.O.’s Association – AppellantVersusGovernment of Andhra Pradesh & Others – RespondentsCIVIL APPEAL NO.4383 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.4926 of 2006)Decided On : 3 – 04 – 2014

IMPORTANT POINTWrit petition cannot be maintained in absence of bona fides of the writ petitioners.

Judicial Analysis

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.
A.P.N.G.O.’s Association – Appellant
Versus
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4383 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.4926 of 2006)
Decided On : 3 – 04 – 2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Writ petition cannot be maintained in absence of bona fides of the writ petitioners.