IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, JJ.
Ahobila Mutt Parampara Adheena – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
W.P. (PIL) No. 231 of 2020, W.P. No. 5105 of 2019, W.P. No. 806 of 2021
Decided On : 13-10-2022
Endowments Act – Evidence Act – Section 81 – Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 – Arguments in these cases were commenced by learned senior counsel petitioner prays for any writ order or direction nature of a writ of quo warranto questioning authority of 2nd respondent in appointing respondent as Executive Officer of Sri Ahobila Mutt Parampara Aadheena Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam authority by which respondent has directed respondent to change age-old traditional administration – Held, Court finds that posting of a Government servant Temple is not supported by any statutory provision or a rule fact that there is some delay in challenge of this appointment fact remains that this post of an Executive Officer is per se contrary to provisions later Act on ground of mere delay – Court cannot approve decision opinion of this Court it is void ab initio and in violation of constitutional right guaranteed – Writ Petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The arguments in these cases were commenced by the learned senior counsel Sri C.R. Sridharan in W.P. (PIL) No. 231 of 2020. Sri W.B. Srinivas, learned senior counsel argued on behalf of the petitioners in other two Writ Petitions. Learned Advocate General argued on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. W.P. (PIL) No. 231 of 2020 is preferred by a person claiming to be a devotee and a person interested in the Ahobilam Math and Temple. The petitioner prays for any writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of a writ of quo warranto questioning the authority of the 2nd respondent in appointing the 3rd respondent as Executive Officer of Sri Ahobila Mutt Parampara Aadheena Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam and the authority by which the 2nd respondent has directed the 3rd respondent to change the age-old traditional administration in the name of Srivan Satagopa Sri to the one under the name and seal of the 3rd respondent and to quash the appointment order as well as order to operate bank accounts in the name and seal of the 3rd respondent thereby restoring the tradition of administration and operation of bank accounts by the Jeeyar of Sri Ahobila Mutt.
3. The prayer in W.P. No. 5105 of 2019 is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in imposing the 3rd respondent-Executive Officer in the administration of Ahobilam Devasthanam, which is under the management of Ahobilam Math, as unconstitutional, being ultra vires of the Act 30 of 1987, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal and violative of the fundamental rights of the devotees of the Ahobilam Temple.
4. The prayer in W.P. No. 806 of 2021 is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in appointing the 3rd respondent as Executive Officer vide proceedings Rc. No. E2/15021/202/2020 dated 30.12.2020 and imposing the administration of the 3rd respondent on Ahobilam Devasthanam which is under the management of Ahobilam Math.
5. It is stated in the writ affidavit in W.P. (PIL) No. 231 of 2020 that Ahobilam Temple has been under the control of Sri Ahobilam Mutt since time immemorial. The details and history of Ahobilam Temple has been described in the following manner:
“The Lord who saved Prahlada and took the oath on himself to reside in a cave in Ahobilam, appeared before Sri Kidambi Srinivasacharya, gave Sanyasa Deeksha, a ritual that is needed to become the Jeeyar (pontiff), and the authority to administer Ahobilam Mutt temple to him. The Lord also handed over the idol of Lord Malola Narasimha Swamy with Lakshmi (Utsava Moorthy) to the Jeeyar with instructions to carry the idol with him and spread the philosophy of Sri Vaishnavisam and do Prapatti to his followers. Prapatti is a ritual which would help the inner soul to render services to God once the person leaves this material world. As the First Jeeyar of Sri Ahobila Mutt got the Sanyasa Deeksha and temple administration directly from the Lord, Sri Kidambi Srinivasacharya was called by the name Sri Narasimha Jeeyar or Srimad Azhagiyasinghar, which in Tamil means beautiful lion. Receiving the orders of the Lord, Sri Narasimha Jeeyar traveled from Ahobilam to Alwar Thirunagari and installed Nammalwar Vigraham there. For this great service, Sri Narasimha Jeeyar was honoured with Hamsa Mudra of Nammalwar and the title Sri Adivan Satagopa Yatheendra Mahadesikan.”
“Successive Jeeyars of Sri Ahobila Mutt are the trustees to Sri Ahobila Mutt Parampara Aadheena Sri Lakshmi Swamy Ahobilam Devasthanam since then in succession continuously without
Bala Shankar Maha Shanker Bhattjee vs. Charity Commissioner
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt
Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar vs. Mohd. Jaffar Mahomed Hussein
H.H. Arjun Doss Mahant vs. The Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments Department
K. Bhagirathi G. Shenoy and Others vs. K.P. Ballakuraya and Another
Maharaj Singh vs. State of U.P. (1977) 1 SCC 155
Marimuthu Dikshithar vs. State of Madras
Pavani Sridhara Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Ratilal Panachand Gandhi vs. State of Bombay and Others
Srinivas Ramanuj Das vs. Surjanarayan Das
Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Sukhdev Singh vs. Maharaja Bahadur of Gidhaur
Sri Sri Sri Lakshamana Yatendrulu vs. State of A.P. (1996) 8 SCC 705
SupremeToday
Hereditary trustee of Naduvil Madom Group of Devaswoms - 2nd respondent Commissioner cannot be found fault with in issuing Ext.P3 order appointing the 4th respondent as the Executive Officer of Sree ....
The appointment of non-hereditary trustees is valid under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act when there is evidence of mismanagement by hereditary trustees, and full legal procedures a....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of an Executive Officer to a religious institution must be supported by objective reasons and proper application of mind by....
The Commissioner lacked authority to appoint an Executive Officer for temple administration, violating established law and trustee rights under the HR & CE Act.
Administrative powers of a religious institution trustee are subject to statutory supervision. Boards cannot appoint executive officers indefinitely, nor can trustees create non-sanctioned posts. App....
State authorities cannot unilaterally usurp the managerial role of an established religious institution's trustees to implement infrastructure projects. Temple funds, particularly surpluses, must fol....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Assistant Commissioner does not have the power to declare an institution as a religious institution and appoint a fit person under Section....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.