RAMESH RANGANATHAN
Machani Nagaraju – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad – Respondent
The action of the respondents, in appointing the 2nd respondent as the Executive Officer of Sri Neela Kanteswara Swamy Temple, Yemmiganur village and Mandal, Kurnool District, vide proceedings dated 10.01.2014, is questioned in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary and illegal. The subject temple was registered under the provisions of the Madras Endowments Act 2 of 1927, and was declared thereunder as a “public religious endowment”. The petitioner was declared as the hereditary trustee of the subject temple, under Section 20(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious and Endowments Act 1966 (hereinafter called the 1966 Act), by proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Kurnool dated 25.09.1980; and was given the right to assume charge, as the hereditary trustee, in the line of succession of his late father.
2. It is the petitioner’s case that the subject temple was constructed around 200 years ago by the members of his family with their own personal funds; it was initially meant for the benefit of the family; it was later thrown open to the public; the original temple consisted of the principal deity i.e. Lord Shiva in the form of a sivalingam
Philips Workers Union v. Registrar of Trade Unions ((1994) III LLJ 1159 Cal);
Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana (AIR 1985 SC 1147))
Dipak Babaria v. State of Gujarat ((2014) 3 SCC 502);
Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor (AIR 1936 PC 253);
Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh (AIR 1954 SC 322);
State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh (AIR 1964 SC 358);
Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad (1999 (8) SCC 266);
Dhananjaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka (2001 (4) SCC 9);
Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Essar Power Limited (2008 (4) SCC 755)).
(HindustanPetroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai ((2005) 7 SCC 627);
Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab ((2008)1 SCC 728)).
(Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board (AIR 1967 S.C. 295);
Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India ((1981) 1 SCC 664))
(Rohtas Industries Ltd v. S.D. Agarwal (AIR 1969 SC 707)).
India Cement Ltd. v. Union of India ((1990)4 SCC 356)
Rajesh Kumar v. Dy. CIT ((2007)2 SCC 181))
(S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India ((1990) 4 SCC 594))
(Som Datt Datta v. Union of India (AIR 1969 SC 414);
RaviYashwant Bhoir v. Collector ((2012) 4 SCC 407);
State of W.B. v. Atul Krishna Shaw ((1991 Supp (1) SCC 414 AIR 1990 SC 2205);
Oryx Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India ((2010) 13 SCC 427)).
Union of India v. E.G. Nambudiri ((1991) 3 SCC 38))
Sindhi Education Society v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) ((2010) 8 SCC 49)).
Tara Chand Khatri v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi ((1977) 1 SCC 472);
State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar Pandit (AIR 1963 SC 1612);
Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal
(Roshan Deen v. Preetilal ((2002) 1 SCC 100);
R. Reddy Law College Employees Association, Eluru, W.G. District v. Bar Council of India
State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu ((1994) 2 SCC 481);
P. Sridhara Rao v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1996 SC 1334);
(Thammanna v. K. Veera Reddy (AIR 1981 SC 116);
Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar ((1975) 2 SCC 703 = AIR 1975 SC 2092);
J. M. Desai v. Roshan Kumar (AIR 1976 SC 578)).
(S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 149)).
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India ((1982) 3 SCC 235: 1982 SCC (L&S) 275);
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary ((1992) 4 SCC 305);
(Sheela Barse v. Union of India ((1988) 4 SCC 226);
Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks ((1998) 8 SCC 1);
Popcorn Entertainment v. City Industrial Development Corpn. ((2007) 9 SCC 593);
MumtazPost Graduate Degree College v. University of Lucknow ((2009) 2 SCC 630);
Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan ((2003) 7 SCC 546)).
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.