Pagadala Pratap vs State of A. P. rep. , by its Principal Secretary to Govt, Department of Revenue (Endowments), Hyderabad

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(AP) 498

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD.
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J.
Pagadala Pratap and another – Appellant
verses.
State of A.P. rep., by its Principal Secretary to Govt, Department of Revenue (Endowments), Hyderabad and others – Respondent
Writ Petition No.3622, 3354 and 3844 of 2009
Decided on 22-06-2010.

Advocates Appeared:
Smt. Ch. Kanaka Durga, Mr. P. Gangaiah Naidu, Senior Counsel for Mr. M. Vidyasagar,
N. Curugopal and Mr. S. Subba Reddy, Counsel for the Petitioners.
G.P for Endowments for Respondent No.1 to 5 in W.P.No. 3622 of 2009 and Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.No. 3354 of 2009 and No.1 in W.P.No. 3844 of 2009.
Mr. A. Chandraiah Naidu, Counsel for Respondent Nos. 8, 11 and 14 in W.P.
No. 3622 of 2009 and Nos.2, 5 and 8 in W.P.No. 3844 of 2009.
Mr. V.T.M. Prasad, Counsel for Respondent No.3 in W.P.No. 3354 of 2009.

Headnote:A) A.P. CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENTS ACT 30 of 1987, Sections 18 and 19 - A.P. Charitable and A) Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987, Rule 6 (2) - Except for a vague statement that the applicants fulfilled the qualifications and did not suffer from the disqualifications stipulated in Act 30/1987 the report of Assistant Commissioner, Chittoor makes no mention of the efforts made, or the information gathered, by him to satisfy himself that none of the applicants suffered from any of the other disqualifications in clauses (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (h), (j) and (k) of Section 19 of Act 30 of 1987 it was held that no proper verification report as required under Rule 6(2)
       B) A.P. CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENTS ACT 30 of 1987, Sections 15, 17, 18 and 19 - A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987, Rule 8 (a) and (b):- Where no independent enquiry is made by the competent authority with regard to antecedents of the applicants for the post of Trustee to Hindu Temples and Religious Endowment, their appointment is bad in law for non-application of mind.
       C) A.P. CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENTS ACT 30 of 1987, Section 15:- Where eight of ten candidates recommended by he Minister of Public Relations have been blindly appointed as Trustees of the Hindu Temple without individual and independent antecedent enquiry, the appointment is to be considered solely on the pressure imposed by such Minister and hence bad. Though Public representatives like M.L.A.s or Minister can recommend the competent authority cannot abdicate its duties and surrender their powers to them.
       D) A.P. CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENTS ACT 30 of 1987, Section 15 – Where the Information and Public Relations Minister and the Secetary at whose instance the appointment of Trustees is alleged to have been made competent authority abdicating the duties and surrendering statutory discretion is impleaded, but none of them appeared or filed an affidavit rebutting those allegations of malice, they are deemed to be correct though generally allegations of malice are normally to be proved by conclusive evidence.
       E) A.P. CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENTS ACT 30 of 1987, Section 15:- The impugned order of the Government appointing is struck down by High Court being illegal on grounds of non-application of mind and non-fulfillment of the legal provisions and rules surrendering statutory duties and abdication of the responsibilities.

ORDER

Constitution of the Trust Board of Sri Kalahasteswara Swamy Devasthanam, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District, vide G.O.Rt. No.313 dated 20.02.2009, is under challenge in these three writ petitions. As such they were heard together, and are now being disposed of by a common order. Since all the trust board members are arrayed as respondents, and the Minister for Information and Public Relations, and the Principal Secretary (Revenue), Government of Andhra Pradesh, (against both of whom malice is alleged), are arrayed as respondents eo-nomine in W.P. No.3622 of 2009 it would suffice, for disposal of all these three writ petitions, if the facts in W.P.No.3622 of 2009 are noted.

2. As the annual income of the Sri Kalahasthiswara Swamivari temple, a Section 6(a) religious institution, exceeds rupees one crore the State Government, which is the competent authority to appoint a board of trustees, under Section 15(1) of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act (Act 30 of 1987), issued a notification in G.O.Rt. No.2355 dated 05.11.2007 inviting applications from interested persons for appointment as non-hereditary members of the trust board. W.P. No.20269 of 2008 was filed questioning the procedure prescribed by the Government, in G.O.Rt. No.2355 dated 05.11.2007, for appointment of trustees to the Srikalahasteeswara Swamivari temple. This Court, by order in W.P.M.P. No.26459 of 2008 dated 26.08.2008, suspended the process of appointment of trustees observing that the Government could issue a fresh notification duly following the prescribed procedure. Thereafter the Government issued the notification in G.O.Rt. No.2121 dated 18.11.2008, in super session of G.O.Rt. No.2355 dated 05.11.2007, inviting applications from persons interested in being appointed as trustees. The said notification was published in the local newspapers on 05.12.2008. Pursuant thereto, 114 applications were received by the Government. These 114 applications were forwarded to the Commissioner of Endowments, vide memo dated 27.01.2009, for causing verification of their antecedents. The Commissioner split the 114 applications in two batches. While 97 applications were sent, vide proceedings dated 10.02.2009, for verification of antecedents to the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Chittoor, the other 17 were sent to the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Rajahmundry.

3. Even before the antecedents of the applicants could be verified, the Minister for Information and Public Relations, vide letter dated 12.02.2009, informed the Minister of Endowments that the term of the earlier trust committee 'of the Srikalahasti Devastanam had expired on 26.11.2007; and a number of representations were received for re-constitution of the same. While enclosing a copy of the request of the Srikalahasthi M.L.A, proposing the names of ten persons to be appointed as trustees of the Sri Kalahastiswaraswamy temple, the Minister of Information and Public Relations requested the Minister of Endowments to consider constituting a trust board with those ten members. By its memo No. 49015/Endts.II/A1/2008 dated 17.2.2009 the Government, while enclosing a copy of the letter of the Minister of Information and Public Relations dated 12.2.2009, requested the Commissioner of Endowments to verify whether the applications of the 10 applicants, named in the said letter of the Minister, had been received in time, to examine the matter and furnish his remarks along with the antecedents of the applicants, including these ten applicants, immediately for taking further action.

4. The Assistant Commissioner, Rajahmundry forwarded the applications, vide memo dated 16.02.2009, to the Inspector of Endowments to cause enquiry and submit his report. The Inspector of Endowments, Kakinada submitted his report on 18.02.2009. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Rajahmundry forwarded his report to the Commissioner of Endowments on the same day despite the fact that the Inspector of E

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(AP) 498

Cases Referred (22)