Point of Law : The A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions Lease and License Rules, 2003 issued under G.O.Ms provided for licenses being granted through a public tender. Even otherwise the respondents can only dispose or grant rights through a public auction.

ORDER :

1. W.P.No.17670 of 2013 is filed for a mandamus for declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in paying 50% of the ticket amount to the petitioners for tonsuring services as illegal, incorrect etc.

2. W.P.No.16796 of 2020 is filed by the petitioners questioning the action of the 3rd respondent in not releasing the share remuneration of tonsuring tickets for July and August, 2020.

3. W.P.No.21185 of 2020 is filed questioning the action of the 3rd respondent in distributing the remuneration of Rs.8,01,950/- for the months of July and August, 2020.

4. W.P.No.2587 of 2021 is filed by the petitioners seeking regularization of their services as Junior Assistants.

5. Thus, it is seen that three out of four writ petitions are filed with regard to the services being rendered by barbers and the related issues in the Sri Penusila Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Penchalakona. Mr. M.Penchala Swamy is the main protagonist in these Writ Petitions. He is claiming to be a hereditary barber in this temple and asserting certain rights, which are strongly disputed by the others.

6. It is clear that from 2013 onwards the dispute is pending. As can be seen from the Writs filed these claims are resisted by the other set of barbers, who claim to be actually rendering the services. The temple, as represented by Sri G. Ramana Rao, learned standing counsel is stuck between these two rival claimants and in view of the orders passed is paying huge amounts to both. Therefore, the Writ Petitions were taken up for hearing at the request of the standing counsel.

7. Sri D.V.Sasidhar, appearing for Mr. Penchala Swamy and another states that Mr.Penchala Swamy belongs to hereditary family of barbers, who have been traditionally rendering services in this temple for generations together. He relies upon the proceedings dated 20.04.1996, issued by the then Executive Officer, wherein the name of Mr.Penchala Swamy was shown in the proceedings, as a person rendering hereditary tonsuring services. He also relies upon the order dated 28.03.2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, wherein the services of Mr.Penchala Swamy were directed to be utilized and the entire payment was to be paid to him. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that from 1996 onwards the petitioners had been rendering services and this is recognized by the respondents. He, therefore, submits that the subsequent order issued on 03.07.2018 to pay 100% of the amount collected directly to the barbers is not correct. This is the sum and substance of his claim as regards the payments and services rendered.

8. Sri G. Ramana Rao, learned standing counsel for the Endowments submits that the department by virtue of the orders being passed by the Courts is paying money both to Mr. M. Penchala Swamy and also to these barbers, who claimed to be rendering services. He also submits that the hereditary rights existing in the temples have been abolished by Act 30 of 1987 and that neither Mr. M. Penchala Swamy nor others can claim vested hereditary rights in the tonsuring activity and also to claim payments. It is his contention that the issue has to be finally resolved by this Court and points out that in view of the very divergent stands taken at various points of time the respondent temple is facing very serious problems. He points out that neither the petitioners have any vested rights nor constitutional rights to claim the mandamus.

9. Sri C. Subodh appearing for the group of barbers, who are claiming to be rendering services, states that they are the people who are actually rendering services in the temple and carrying out tonsuring activity. Therefore, he submits that they alone are eligible to receive all the remuneration that would have been generated by this activity. It is reiterated that Mr.Penchala Swamy does not have any vested hereditary rights in the temple.

COURT:-

10. As mentioned earlier Sri D.V.Sasidhar, is relying upon the order dated 28.03.2005 by which his clients’ services were direct