IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that the adoption of a charitable institution must follow legal procedures and cannot be executed without proper consent from the trustees.

ORDER :

K. MANMADHA RAO, J

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“….to issue appropriate writ or order or direction preferably one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction and to declare the action of the 1st respondent in granting adoption without there being any material whatsoever is bad, illegal and consequently to set aside the order of adoption issued by the 1st respondent in Proceedings in Rc.No.G3/28094/2007, dated 3.8.2007 and pass….”

2. The facts of case are that Sri C.V.Reddy belongs to Vysya Community has established an Institution by name Sri CV. Reddy Charitable Trust by a Will Deed dated 24.4.1944. He donated his own properties situated in the Vijayawada City to the Trust by way of the said Will and under the Trust Deed/Will Deed, he appointed his wife and 3 others as lifetime Trustees and all of them predeceased Sri C.V. Reddy, who also died on 31.1.1981. Sri C.V. Reddy has no issues and the 1st petitioner is the son of his elder brother late Sri Ch. Kanthaiah. He filed OA No.149 of 1989 before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada (for short “the Tribunal”), for declaration as a Hereditary Trustee and the same was allowed declaring him as a Founder Trustee by an order dated 27.2.1991. While the matter stood thus, the Government has appointed an Executive Officer in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments. Though the Institution is running very well, the 2nd respondent temple who is headed by an officer of Regional Joint Commissioner has submitted a letter in Rc.No.E1/2859/2007, dated 29.6.2007 stating that Sri C.V.Reddy Charities having vast properties i.e., Godown and shops and they required reconstruction. Even if the reconstruction is done, that may not fetch the Institution in a profitable manner and as the 2nd respondent’s temple is interested to take the landed properties and the fixed deposit amount of Rs.28 Lakhs. The 2nd respondent temple also given undertaking that the amount of Rs.28 Lakhs will be deposited in the name of Sir C.V. Reddy Charities and it will continue to fulfill the objects of the Donor. But without calling report from the District Officer and without taking consent from the Trustees of the Institution, the 1st respondent approved the proposal of adoption and directed the 2nd respondent to administer the adopted temple treating that the C.V Reddy Charities is in a poor financial position. The action of the 1st respondent in giving adoption without hearing the Trustees and without looking into the financial status is bad. The adoption order issued by the 1st respondent is bad in law and cannot be sustainable. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. While denying the allegations made in the petition, contended that, the Board of Trustees of the subject Institution has passed a resolution on 12.04.2008 and resolved, that the orders of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad passed in D.Disc.G3/28094/07, implement the same dated 03.08.2007. They further resolved to as the wholesale Iron business was shifted to Market Yard, Bhavanipuram from I Town, and some of the tenants are vacated from the godowns and handed over the same to the subject institution and in spite of the auctions conducted by the subject institution, nobody have come forward to participate in public auction for the lease of the Shops and Godowns and since the subject institution is in a poor financial position, it is better to give the said institution for adoption to the 2nd Respondent i.e., Sri Durga Malleswaraswamyvarla Devasthanam for better management and also for the development of the institution and that the movable and immovable properties of subject institution, including the working staff and the immoveable property of an extent of 1276.9 sq. yards including the structures therein to be handed over to the 2nd Respondent her