The Government has the power to entertain a revision against an interlocutory order passed by the Commissioner under Section 83(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Endowments Act.

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE main question raised by Mr. Babul Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in this case is that the Government has no power to entertain a revision under Sec. 83 of the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Endowments act (herein after called as the Act) against an interlocutory order passed by the Commissioner (pending a revision before him. A few facts may be stated.

( 2 ) THE respondents 4 to 10 were appointed as non-hereditary trustees for for Sri Kanyakaparameswari Devasthanam, Chittoor, by the Assistant commissioner Endowments by his order dated 17-8-1978. Against that order the petitioners, who claim that the said institution is a denominational institution, filed a revision before the joint Commissioner. Their contention is that the Assistant Commissioner had no power to appoint non-hereditary trustees for this institution. The revision was entertained by the Joint Commissioner who also granted an interim stay of the operation of the order of the assistant Commissioner. Thereupon the non-hereditary trustees appeared before the Joint Commissioner and applied for vacating the interim stay. That was refused and the interim stay was made absolute. Against the order making the interim stay absolute, the non-hereditary trustees filed a revision before the Government under See. 83 of the Act which was entertained by the government, which passed an interim order staying the operation of the orders of the Joint Commissioner pending disposal of the revision before the government. It is the said order which is challenged in this writ petition.

( 3 ) MR. Babul Reddy learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the language of Sec. 83 of the Act and particularly of sub-section (3) thereof, it must be held that no revision is maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by the Commissioner. I am unable to agree with the learned Counsel. Sub-sections (1) (2) and (3) of Sec. 83 of the Act read as follows; (1) The Government may suo motu or on an application call for and examine the record of the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or assistant Commissioner or Executive Officer of any trustee, not being the trustee of a math or specific endowment attached to a math, in respect of any proceeding not being a proceeding in respect of which a suit or an appeal or application or reference to a Court is provided by this Act, to satisfy themselves as to the regularity or propriety of any decision or order passed therein and if, in any case, it appears to the Government that such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, they may pass orders accordingly. (2) The Government may stay the execution of any such decision or order pending the exercise of their powers under Sub-section (1) in respect thereof, (3) No application to the Government for the exercise of their power under this section shall be made in respect of the same matter to the commissioner under Section 82 and had been disposed of by him. " it would be appropriate to set out sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 82 of the Act as well. They are as follows: (1) The Commissioner may either Suo motu or on an application, call for and examine the record of any Deputy Commissioner or Assistant commissioner, or of any trustee of a charitable or religious institution or endowment, other than a math or a specific endowment attached to a math, in respect of any proceeding under this Act, not being a proceeding in respect of which a suit or an appeal or application or reference to a Court is provided by this Act to satisfy himself as to the regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order taken or passed therein and if it appears to the Commissioner that such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reccnsideration, he may pass orders accordingly. (2) The Commissioner shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party unde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document