IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Gunda Subbarayudu Mutyamamba Rama Satram – Petitioner
Versus
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 11907 of 2012
Decided On : 18-10-2024
Exemption - Writ Petition - Article 226 - Sections 8(4), 15, 29, 154 - The court interpreted the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, emphasizing the lack of jurisdiction in appointing an Executive Officer without proper authority, leading to the writ petition's allowance.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the appointment of an Executive Officer to manage a charitable institution, claiming it was illegal due to a government exemption for similar institutions under the Endowments Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment lacked jurisdiction as the Deputy Commissioner did not have the authority to appoint an Executive Officer without proper delegation from the government.
Issues: Whether the appointment of an Executive Officer by the Deputy Commissioner was valid under the provisions of the Endowments Act, given the exemption granted to the institution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Deputy Commissioner exceeded his authority in appointing an Executive Officer, as the necessary delegation of power was not established.
Result: The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings.
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
“........to issue a Writ Order or Directions particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the Proceedings issued by the 3rd Respondent in Rc No B2/5603/2011 Dated 17.04.2012 is illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction and set aside the same....”
2. It is case of the petitioner that his great grandfather Gunda Subbarayudu has established the institution in the year 1943 in the name and style of “SRI GUNDA SUBBARAYUDU MUTYAMAMBA RAMA SATRAM” (herein after called “Satram”) to provide Annadanam to Brahmana, Shatriya and Vysya Community. He has donated 40 acres of land situated at Jakkampudi Shahabad and patapadu Villges, Vijayawada rural and also donated a building 11-25-97 situated at main road Vijayawada and an extent of 0.85 Cents of site at Kothapet, Vijayawada. During his life time he managed the institution and after his demise his son Gunda Krishna Murthy managed and thereafter my father Gunda Kodanda Rama Vittal Rao managed the institution till his death namely 26.01.1997. Subsequently, after demise of this father, the petitioner has been managing the institution. The Assistant Commissioner by the proceedings dated 10.10.2002 in RC No. A1/7536/2002 has recognized the petitioner as founder Institution member under the provisions of Act 30of 1987. It is stated that, in order to fulfill the objects in a better way, the petitioner applied to the Government for exemption of the satram from the purview of the provisions of the Act. But the same was rejected by the Vigilance officer of the office of the commissioner by the proceedings dated 23.07.2011. The Petitioner recently came to know that the Government vide G.O.Ms. No. 1098 Revenue (Endowments I) Department dated 11.09.2008 has exempted all the Choultries and Annadanamsamajams maintained by Arya Vysya Community from the operation of Section 15 and 29 of the Act. The exemption orders passed by the Government is in General and applicable to all the institutions/choultries established by the Arya Vysya Community. Therefore neither the Government nor the Commissioner or any authority has any jurisdiction to appoint any executive Officer to maintain or administer the choultry/annadana samajams established by the Arya Vysya Community. Without knowing the exemption orders passed by the Government, the petitioner has submitted the application for exemption of the institution from the purview of the Act. How ever, in view of the General Exemption Orders issued by the government or other authority to exercise any power to appoint executive officer U/s 29 of the Act. Therefore the impugned order suffers lack of jurisdiction and is Void. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed.
3. This Court vide order dated 23.04.2012 has granted interim suspension as prayed for.
4. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, stated that, the subject institution having Ac. 40.00 cents of Agricultural land at Jakkampudi, Shahabad and Mukasa Pathapadu in Krishna District. Besides this there are one building and one vacant site which are located in prime location at Vijayawada city. The Founder Family Member who is the petitioner herein made a representation to exempt the institution under the provisions of Endowments Act U/s. 154 and the same was rejected. As the petitioner failed to lease out the lands in public auction as required U/s. 82 of the Act for which caused financial loss to the institution and violated the statutory provisions. It is stated that on his representation regarding exemption of the institution, the Commissioner of Endowments has examined at field level and noticed that the petitioner failed to discharge his legitimate duties and hence rejected his request for exemption and instructed the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada to post an Executive Off
AI
The court established that proper authority and jurisdiction are essential for appointing an Executive Officer under the Endowments Act, particularly in light of existing exemptions.
The court established that the Commissioner of Endowments lacked jurisdiction to revoke exemptions and appoint trustees without following due process as mandated by the Endowments Act.
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 Endowment Commissioner's appointment of a Fit Person to administer a religious institution was found illegal, undermining the fundamental right to manage religious affairs.
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....
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.