The requirement of a unanimous resolution by all members of the Dharmika Parishad under Rule 23 of the Dharmika Parishad Rules is mandatory, and the absence of such a resolution invalidates the resolution of the Dharmika Parishad.

JUDGMENT

The interim management of Sri Mad Virat Pothuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamy Mutt (herein after referred as “the Mutt”), is the subject matter of the dispute before this Court.

2. The 2nd petitioner is the widow of the 11th Peethadhipathi of the Mutt. He passed away on 08.05.2021. It is the case of the 2nd petitioner that her elder son, who is the 1st petitioner herein, had been nominated by her late husband as the person to be appointed as Peethadhipathi by way of a Will executed on 10.11.2018. It is also the case of the petitioners that as the 1st petitioner was still a minor, it was stipulated in the Will that the 2nd petitioner would be a temporary Peethadhipathi, till the 1st petitioner attains majority. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased Peethadhipathi had, on 01.10.2010, nominated the 1st petitioner as his successor Peethadhipathi and intimated the said nomination on the same day to the Dharmika Parishad by way of a letter sent under certificate of posting. It is further submitted that the nomination of the 1st petitioner as the permanent Peethadhipathi and the 2nd petitioner as the temporary Peethadhipathi under the Will dated 10.11.2018 was also intimated to the Dharmika Parishad.

3. The petitioners have now approached this Court on the ground that the 2nd respondent had issued proceedings in Rc.No.DPCELL/COE-25030(31)/152021, dated 12.06.2021, under Section 52 of the Endowments Act, appointing the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kadapa as a fit person under Section 51 of the Endowments Act to take over the administration of the Mutt.

4. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing for the official respondents submitted written instructions from the respondents, the proceedings of the Dharmika Parishad, which took the decision to appoint a fit person under Section 52 of the Endowments Act, and also the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Dharmika Parishad Rules, 2009 (herein after referred to as the Dharmika Parishad Rules).

5. Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners after having gone through the written instructions and the documents and the proceedings of the Dharmika Parishad assails the impugned order dated 12.06.2021 as well as the proceedings of the Dharmika Parishad on the following grounds:

i) Section 52 of the Endowments Act would not be applicable to the present case for the following reasons:

a) Section 52 of the Endowments Act would apply only where there is a temporary vacancy or dispute in regard to right of succession in a temporary vacancy or where the Peethadhipathi is a minor and does not have a proper guardian. He submits that none of the situations arise in the present case as the death of the earlier Peethadhipathi has created a permanent vacancy and the 2nd petitioner, who is the mother of the 1st petitioner is willing to act as the guardian of the 1st petitioner till he attains majority.

b) The dispute relating to succession would not be in relation to a permanent vacancy and only relates to a temporary vacancy as can be seen from the language of the provision.

ii) Rule 13 to 22 of the Dharmika Parishad Rules set out the manner in which a meeting of the Dharmika Parishad is to be conducted. These rules require notices to be sent to the members of the Dharmika Parishad along with an agenda setting out the issues to be discussed in the meeting.

6. In the present case, no such meeting has been called for, and as such, the decision of the Dharmika Parishad cannot be accepted, as it was signed without a meeting. Rule 23 of the Dharmika Parishad Rules stipulate that a decision can be taken by way of resolution, provided, it is a unanimous decision of all the members of the Dharmika Parishad. In the present case, even according to the respondents, there are four members in the Dharmika Parishad. However, one member, viz., the Executive Officer of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam did not sign the note filed by way o