A.P. Act No.30 of 1987 is only prospective in operation and not retrospective.

ORDER :-This writ petition has been filed seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to make any payments by way of any commission or custom etc. to Archakas from out of the collections of the Hundi and Pooja ticket sales etc. of Bramarambha Mailikarjunaswamy Devasthanams, Srisailam. It is not disputed that there was such a practice and custom. But, now the same is sought to be disrupted. In the writ petition, a general averment is made that the Andhra Pradesh Government have abolished the practice of hereditary trustees and Archakas and as such the question of paying commission to the Archakas out of the temple collection should not arise and that in no other temple such commission is being paid out of the collection of the temple and as such, no relief should be granted.

2. In the course of the argument, Mr. I. Venkatnarayana submitted and argued a proposition that in view of S.34 of A.P. Act No.30 of 1987, even if the decree was granted by the Court hitherto for the payment of such commission to the Archakas, the same got nullified because of the said provision. I make it clear that this adjudication is restricted only up to the date of enactment of A.P. Act No.30 of 1987 and its commencement which has been notified in G.O.Ms. No.504, dated 25-5-1987 bringing the Act into operation with effects from 28-5-1987 is not being adjudicated. As such, the scope of adjudication of this writ petition is only up to 27-5-1987. I shall now consider the argument of Mr. Venkatnarayana, the learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that A.P. Act No.30 of 1987 is retrospective in operation and even if a decree was passed before 28-5-1987, if the same has not been acted upon, it gets nullified because of the above enactment.

3. Mr. C. V. Kanyaka Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 submits that when the right of commission was negatived to the respondents 3 and 4, they had raised a dispute before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments in O.A. No.70 of 1973 and when the Deputy Commissioner held in the negative, they had instituted a suit in O.S. No.2 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Kurnool and by judgment dated 9-2-1977, the said suit was decreed upholding the contention, of the respondents 3 and 4 and that the same was upheld by the learned single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 12-2-1982 in A.S. No.269 of 1978 and further on an appeal in LPA 73 of 1982, the same was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court by their judgment dated 24-2-1987 and that the matter was further carried to the Supreme Court in SLP No.14929 of 1987, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn. What, in effect, is the argument of Mr. Kanyaka Prgsad is that the decree passed upholding the contention of the respondents 3 and 4 with regard to their entitlement of commission had become final and it is irreversible and has got to be enforced and that A. P. Act No.30 of 1987 either expressly or by necessary implication does not nullify the above decree.

4. Sub-section (4) of S.1 of A. P. Act No.30 of 1987 states that the Act comes into force on such date as the State Government may by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette appoint. The statute was not to come into operation immediately. There is no date appointed for its commencement in the Act itself. It was dependent upon the issuance of notification by the Government and the Government had issued such a notification in G.O.Ms. No.504, Revenue (Endowment) Department dated 25-5-1987 stating the date of commencement of the above Act was only with effect from 28-5-1987. Hence, expressly, the Act is made to operate only prospectively from the date of the notification as may be issued by the Government indicating the future date and not with retrospective effect. It is needless to mention that unless the statute says that the Act is retrospective or empowers the Government to issue notification to set the date retrospectively,