JUDGMENT :

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

This intra-court appeal would call in question the legality and validity of the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petition preferred by the petitioners seeking issuance of a writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents, particularly, that of respondents 2 to 5 in shifting/relocating the idol/deity of “Sri Mahankali Ammavaru” installed on 15.03.1976 in accordance with the Hindu Agamasastras, rites and rituals from the sanctum sanctorum of Sri Mahankali Ammavari temple situated at Issappalem village, hamlet of Mulakaluru, Narasaraopet Mandal, Guntur District and also the tomb with bust of Gunji Chukkamma from the place now located within the precincts of the temple, on the pretext of reconstruction (Jirnoddarana), as illegal, arbitrary, opposed to Hindu dharma, faith, rituals and sentiments of the devotees of the locality in particular and all over the State in general and the objects and reasons of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, “the 1987 Act”) and violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct respondents 2 to 5 not to relocate/shift the idol/deity of “Sri Mahankali Ammavaru” from the sanctum sanctorum of the temple as existing now on the ground and the tomb with bust of Gunji Chukkamma from the present location in the premises of the temple situated at Issapalem village, hamlet of Mulakaluru, Narasaraopet Mandal, Guntur District.

2. The learned single Judge relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bishwanath v. Thakur Radha Ballabhji, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1044, to hold that the writ petition is maintainable. It is also held, in petitioners’ favour, that Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India protect the rights of the petitioners to ensure that the methods of worship and principles of temple construction and maintenance followed by the denomination of the petitioners, which are an essential part of their religious denomination, are followed and they are entitled to approach this court in the event of any complaint of violation of these rights. However, on merits, the learned single Judge has declined to interfere in the matter on findings that translocation of deity to another place is permissible as long as the said translocation is done without a mala fide intention and with all due respect and appropriate ceremonies being conducted for the said purpose and further that the petitioners have not relied upon any specific Agamasastra or any passage of any Agamasastra to support their stand against the translocation of deity of “Sri Mahankali Ammavaru” and, in addition, that the petitioners could not demonstrate that translocation of the idol would be violative of the religious practices of the respondent-temple.

PETITIONERS’ CASE:

3. The mother of petitioner No.1 Gunji Chukkamma, who was originally native of Issappalem village, Narasaraopet Mandal, Guntur District, settled at Khammam town after the death of her husband and petitioner No.2 is closely associated with petitioner No.1. Both of them claim to be ardent devotees of “Sri Mahankali Ammavaru”. They constructed a temple of “Sri Mahankali Ammavaru” at Issappalem village and got installed idol of deity and goddess “Sri Mahankali Ammavaru” at the vacant site situated immediately on the East of the main road running from Narasaraopet to Sattenapalli, the temple facing West. The idol was installed on 17.03.1976 in accordance with Hindu Agamasastras and Hindu rites and rituals were also performed at the time of installation of the deity by vedic scholars and purohits by chanting veda mantras. An additional extent of 75 ¾ cents in Sy.No.57A of Issappalem village, at the place where the idol was installed, was purchased on 31.05.1976 by Gunji Chukkamma, mother of petitioner No.1, and petitioner No.2. Temple was constructed on the said site in due course o