Point of Law: Temples which have an income of less than Rs.5 lakhs are exempt from all regulations set out in Endowments Act including payment of various contributions to Endowments Department and also salaries to Executive Officer.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is a founder family member of the 3rd respondent-temple. This temple owns Ac.6.00 cents of land which fetches an income of about Rs.1 lakh per annum. This temple had been registered under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, 'the Act, 1987'). It is the case of the petitioner that on account of the said registration, there are various liabilities cast on the temple, by way of making payments to the Endowments Department, which are effectively taking away the income of the temple. The petitioner relying upon the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.S.Narayana Deekshithulu vs. State of A.P and Others (1996) 9 SCC 548)., and Sri Divi Kodandarama Sarma and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (1997) 6 SCC 189), contends that temples which have an income of less than Rs.5 lakhs are exempt from all the regulations set out in the Endowments Act including the payment of various contributions to the Endowments Department and also salaries to the Executive Officer.

2. On the basis of these contentions, the petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent in notifying and publishing in the Official Gazette, orders of exemption, under Section 154 of the Act, 1987 in relation to all temples whose annual income is less than Rs. 5 lakhs in the State of Andhra Pradesh and for these temples to be managed by the respective founder family members/persons in management.

3. Sri V.Venu Gopala Rao learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner has taken this Court through the aforesaid judgments as well as the report of the committee to contend that there are binding directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to the State Government, to exempt all temples whose income is less than Rs.5 lakhs from the rigors of the provisions of the Endowments Act, 1987.

4. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the figure of Rs.5 lakhs is a typographical error, in the judgment, and it is only temples which have an income of less than Rs.50,000/- which have to be granted such an exemption. She further submits that the 2nd proviso to Section 29(1) of the Act provides for appointment of an executive officer, even if the income is less than Rs.2 lakhs per annum if the temple has substantial property. She would contend that this statutory provision clearly envisages departmental control over temples which have an income of less than two lakh rupees also and there cannot be any omnibus exemption to all temples whose income is less than rupees five lakhs, as contended by the petitioner, or rupees two lakhs as stipulated in Section 29 of the Act.

CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT:

5. Before going into the issues arising in this case, it is necessary to briefly review the circumstances in which this issue has come up. The regulation of Endowment Institutions in the erstwhile Madras province/state commenced with Act 20 of 1863 and went through the enactment of various laws from time to time. It would suffice, for the purposes of this case, to recognize that the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 was in force when the state of Andhra came into existence. After the formation of the state of Andhra Pradesh, the 1951 Act was replaced by The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1966. After the passage of a few decades, a commission, headed by a former chief justice of this court, was appointed to go into the working of the 1966 Act. This commission submitted its report suggesting various changes in the existing law. The State of Andhra Pradesh, on the basis of the said recommendations, repealed the 1966 Act and replaced it with the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

6. The Act brought in certain drastic departures and innovations in the administration of endowments and in the rights and liabilities of v