SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(AP) 217

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Pothina Venkata Mahesh - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 16903 of 2019
Decided On : 24-01-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
V. Venugopala Rao, Advocate

Point of Law: Powers of Deputy Commissioner are limited and Deputy Commissioner can exercise power only in respect of temples or institutions published under clause (b) of Section 6 of the Act. Section 6 of the Act 30 of 1987 deals with preparation and publication of list of charitable and religious institutions and endowments on the basis of income. Clause (a) deals with the charitable institutions and endowment; or the religious institutions and endowments other than maths; whose annual income as calculated for the purpose of levy of contribution under Section 65 exceeds rupees twenty five lakhs.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, Article 226 - A P Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 - Sections 9 and 10 - To issue writ of Quo Warranto against respondent No.4 calling upon him to quit from the office Executive Officer of respondent No.3 temple since he is ineligible and disqualified to hold the post of Executive Officer in the cadre of Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments Department being illegal – Held, word "joint Commissioner" is deleted after appointing respondent No.4 as Executive Officer of respondent No.3 temple, this mistake was realised only after filing this writ petition and issued G.O.Rt.No.1156 dated 07.11.2019 to overcome the legal flaws in the appointment of respondent No.4 as Joint Commissioner and Executive Officer of respondent No.3. Merely because G.O.Rt.No.1156 is passed, it would not cure the defect in appointing respondent No.4 as Executive Officer of respondent No.3 temple since officer in the cadre of I.A.S. is being appointed as Executive Officer of the temple in view of growing importance as referred in G.O.Rt.No.815 dated 01.08.2016 conferring certain powers. Hence, appointment of respondent No.4 as executive officer is contrary to service rules and it is nothing but arbitrary exercise of power by the Government for extraneous reasons. Consequently, appointment of respondent No.4 as Executive Officer of respondent No.3 is liable to be set aside holding that he is disqualified to hold the office of Joint Commissioner which is in the cadre of category - 3 of class - 1 under Rule 3 of the Rules 2002 and not entitled to continue as Executive Officer of respondent No.3 till he is promoted as Joint Commissioner or Regional Joint Commissioner under category - 3 of Class -1 of the Rules, 2002 - Writ petition is allowed

Facts of the Case:

Petitioner is a native of Vijayawada City, had college education at Vijayawada and completed P.hd, worked as lecturer in K.B.N. College, Vijayawada for some time. Presently, he has been carrying on real-estate business besides social work actively. The petitioner and his forefathers are staunch devotee of deity of Sri Durga Malleswara Swamivarla Devasthanam, as such the petitioner is a person interested as defined under Section 2 (18) of the Act 30 of 1987, competent to maintain the present writ petition in the better and effective administration of respondent No.3 temple

Finding of the Court:

Result: Writ petition is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of Quo Warranto against respondent No.4 calling upon him to quit from the office Executive Officer of respondent No.3 temple since he is ineligible and disqualified to hold the post of Executive Officer in the cadre of Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments Department being illegal, contrary to Sections 9 and 10 of A P Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 (for short "the Act 30 of 1987) and Rule 3 of Rules issued in G O Ms No 245 Revenue (Endt.1) dated 08.05.2002 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.590, Revenue (Endowments-1) Department, dated.19.11.2018, vide Note 3 of Rule 3 as Inserted by the said G.O. besides contrary to orders issued by this Hon’ble court in W.P.M.P.No.6378 of 2014 in W.P.No.5133 of 2014 discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, consequentially set aside the said G.O.Rt.No.891 Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 21.08.2019 to the extent of Para 3, whereunder respondent No.4 is posted as Executive Officer of respondent No.3 temple restraining him from the office of respondent No.3 temple.

2. The petitioner is a native of Vijayawada City, had college education at Vijayawada and completed P.hd, worked as lecturer in K.B.N. College, Vijayawada for some time. Presently, he has been carrying on real-estate business besides social work actively. The petitioner and his forefathers are staunch devotee of deity of Sri Durga Malleswara Swamivarla Devasthanam, as such the petitioner is a person interested as defined under Section 2 (18) of the Act 30 of 1987, competent to maintain the present writ petition in the better and effective administration of respondent No.3 temple.

3. The word Deputy Commissioner is defined under Section 2(9), whereas the status of Regional Joint Commissioner is defined under Section 2(20) of the Act 30 of 1987. Both the definitions referred to sub-section 1 of Section 2 of the Act 30 of 1987, while referring to separate functions as provided under statute. Section 9 of the Act 30 of 1987 deals with powers and functions to be exercised by the Regional Joint Commissioner which are specific and unambiguous. Similarly, Section 10 deals with powers and functions of Deputy Commissioner. It is worth noting that while dealing with functions of Deputy Commissioner it is only referable to within a division under his control in respect of such institutions or endowments as are included in the list published under Clause (b) of Section 6 of the Act 30 of 1987. Similarly, the rules and other provisions, also provides that the Deputy Commissioner can be posted as Executive Officer at the temples, corresponding to the said status, but not otherwise particularly at the higher cadre like the temples designated as Regional Joint Commissioner cadre.

4. Recently while making amendments to Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.245, Revenue (Endowments-1) Department, dated 08.05.2002, by issuing G.O.Ms.No.590, dated 19-11-2018, it has provided that there shall be Deputy Executive Officer in the cadre of Deputy Commissioner for the 7 major temples which includes the subject temple i.e., Sri Durga Malleswara Swamivarla Devasthanam. In view of these amended rules and statutory provisions referred to above, the Deputy Commissioner can only be posted as Deputy Executive Officer in 7 major temples, but cannot be posted as Executive Officer in the cadre of Regional Joint Commissioner in the said 7 major temples in Andhra Pradesh.

5. The government has issued G.O.Rt.No.891 Revenue (Endowments-1) Department, dated 21.08.2019 making certain transfers and postings of Executive Officers of certain temples and other vacancies in the department. As per para-3 of the said G.O., the 4th respondent who is a Deputy Commissioner is posted as Joint Com

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
          whatsapp-icon Back to top