Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GODA RAGHURAM, M.S.LIBERHAN
Hitakarini Samaj, Rajahmundry - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 07-27-99
ENDOWMENTS ACT - HITAKARINI SAMAJ, RAJAHMUNDRY - G. O. MS. NO. 642, REVENUE (ENDOWMENTS-IV) DEPT. , DATED 14-7-1993 - VALIDITY - PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - SALE OF ENDOWMENT PROPERTY - PUBLIC AUCTION - EXEMPTION FROM PROVISIONS OF THE ACT - MINORITY INSTITUTION - PUBLIC INTEREST - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - LOCUS STANDI.
Fact of the Case:
The Hitakarini Samaj, Rajahmundry, represented by its Secretary filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that G. O. Ms. No. 642, Revenue (Endowments-IV) Dept. , dated 14-7-1993, is illegal, null and void and for directing the respondents - the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Commissioner of Endowments and the Executive Officer, Endowments Department, in-charge of Hitakarini Samaj, to implement G. O. Ms. No. 1133, dated 23-8-1990 and to handover all the institutions belonging to the petitioner Samaj. The petitioner contended that the impugned G. O. is invalid as it is barred by principles of promissory estoppel and violation of principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned G. O. is not invalid as it is not barred by principles of promissory estoppel and violation of principles of natural justice. The court further held that the sale of endowment property by the respondents was valid as it was done in accordance with the provisions of the Act and was in the best interest of the institution. The court also held that the writ petition filed by the journalist was infructuous as the proposals contained in the impugned G. O. had been superseded by subsequent orders of the Government.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned G. O. is invalid as it is barred by principles of promissory estoppel and violation of principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the sale of endowment property by the respondents was valid? 3. Whether the writ petition filed by the journalist was maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the impugned G. O. is not invalid as it is not barred by principles of promissory estoppel and violation of principles of natural justice. The court observed that the principles of promissory estoppel do not ensure in situations where gross mismanagement of the affairs of the institution by the private management is amply recorded and to grant exemption from the provisions of the Act and restore the management of the public charitable institutions into such hands would be a gross subversion of public policy and of public interest. The court further observed that an executive order will not be invalidated where it would result in he activation of an order which would be reductive of public mischief, in particular in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The court held that the sale of endowment property by the respondents was valid as it was done in accordance with the provisions of the Act and was in the best interest of the institution. The court observed that the property was sold at a price far above the market value prevailing on the date of the transaction and that the sale was made in order to generate revenue for the institution. The court further observed that the sale was made in accordance with the procedure ordained by the Endowment Act and as the best possible alternative in the circumstances narrated. 3. The court held that the writ petition filed by the journalist was infructuous as the proposals contained in the impugned G. O. had been superseded by subsequent orders of the Government.
Final Decision: The writ petition filed by the Hitakarini Samaj was dismissed. The writ petition filed by the journalist was dismissed as infructuous.
( 1 ) THESE three writ petitions pertain to the affairs of the Hitakarini Samaj, Rajahmundry and though raising different aspects for consideration, could conveniently be disposed of together and having been heard, are being disposed of by this common judgment. W. P. No. 9964 of 1992:hitakarini Samaj, Rajahmundndry, represented by its Secretary filed this writ petition seeking the relief of "a declaration that G. O. Ms. No. 642, Revenue (Endowments-IV) Dept. , dated 14-7-1993, is illegal, null and void and for directing the respondents - the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Commissioner of Endowments and the Executive Officer, Endowments Department, in-charge of Hitakarini Samaj, to implement G. O. Ms. No. 1133, dated 23-8-1990 and to handover all the institutions belonging to the petitioner Samaj". This relief of challenging G. O. Ms. No. 642, dated 14-7-1993, was amended into the writ petition, by way of order dated 16-8-1994 in WPMP No. 3819of 1994.
( 2 ) THE facts relevant and necessary for considering the issues arising in this writ petition, are as follows in brief: (A) The Hitakrini Samaj, Rajahmiindry, was notified as a Charitable institution by a publication, dated 14-10-1968 issued under the provisions of A. P. Act 17 of 1966 (for short 1966 Act ) It was also registered as a Charitable Institution under Section 38 of the 1966 Act in a proceedings dated 4-5-1972. (B) On an application made by the private management, the State Government in G. O. Ms. No. SSl, dated 21-9-1976 accorded exemption under Sections 15 and 27 of the 1966 Act, to the petitioner s Institution for a period of 3 years enabling the continuance of the private management. On the expiry of the term of exemption, the secretary of the samaj sought exemption for a further period of 3 years. On account of several complaints having been received by the Government from the public against the conduct of the management qua the affairs of the samaj and its attached educational institutions and on account of discovery of irregularities in the management of Institutions as were pointed in an Audit report, the Endowment Department, recommended rejection of the application seeking further exemption. Consequent thereupon, the Commissioner of Endowments issued orders under Section 27 of 1966 Act appointing an Executive Officer to the samaj. (C) The private management there upon moved the State Government against the orders of the Commissioner above referred to, and obtained stay of the orders appointing the Executive Officer. The Management also filed WP 4501/80 before this Court contending that the provisions of the 1966 Act are not applicable to the samaj since it is a minority institution falling outside the purview of the Act. Simultaneously they also filed an O. A. 12/80 before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Kakinada, contending that the samaj is a private institution beyond the purview of the 1966 Act. The O. A. was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, on 4-9-1981 and the WP No. 450l of 1980 was withdrawn by the petitioner on 2-11 -1981. (D) Thereafter the private management moved the Government again for exemption from the provisions of the Act. The State Government by G. O. Ms. Nol815, dated 10-12-1981 again issued orders exempting the Samaj from the purview of Sections 15 and 27 of the 1966 Act, for a period of 3 years. After issue of the above orders, there was a public outcry alleging mismanagement by the private management and that the purposes for which the institutions were brought into existence by the great social reformer late Sri Kandukuri Veeresalingam Pantulu Garu, are being subverted by the private management. Representations were also made to the commissioner, Endowments and the Government in this behalf. Consequent upon the allegations, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, was asked to enquire and submit a detailed report. In the report, various irregularities were noticed in the management of the Samaj and
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
