The court ruled that the stopping of honorarium payment to the Uttaradhikari was arbitrary and illegal, emphasizing the necessity of adherence to budget allocations under the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act.

ORDER :

DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

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

"....to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No 4 in issuing Memo No 37022/90/2018, dated 30.04.2019, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 and for a consequential direction to R.1 to continue payment of honorarium to the petitioner and pass...."

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the Uttaradhikari of Sri Gavi Math Samsthanam, Uravakonda Town, Anantapur District. He was appointed in the year 1997 and discharging his duties with religious faith and fervor. The 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 17.10.2017 accorded permission to 1st respondent to pay Rs.12,000/- to petitioner towards honorarium. The pious devotees of the Math filed W.P.No.23528 of 2018 before this Court against the Math, which was disposed of with a direction to take further action in accordance with law. It is further stated that the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 17.5.2019 that the Honorarium of Rs.12,000/- is stopped to the petitioner as per the orders in Memo of the 4th respondent. It is further stated that the Mathadipathi objected the payment of honorarium. The observations of the 4th respondent are contra to the budgetary allocations of the Math vide D.Dis.No.C.No.DP/COE-/8/2017, dated 20.04.2017. Further, the order of the 4th respondent authority is illegal and arbitrary. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.

3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition. It is further stated that there is no provision for payment of honorarium to a Uttaradhikari from Mutt funds either in Old Act 17/66 or in present Act 30/87. The Uttardhaikari is only a servant to the Matadhipathi but not to Sri Gavi Mutt Samstanam. It is further stated that the order issued by the 4th respondent is not an impugned order. It is a righteous and correct order as per provisions of the Act 30/87. It is further stated that the honorarium amount to be paid to Uttaradhikari cannot come under establishment charges of a mutt Religious Staff since the post of Uttaradhikari is not come under the mutt religious establishment. He is no way concerned to Mutt Administration. He is only to Swamiji Religious function. Hence there is no budget allocation specially under the Head of remuneration to Uttaradhikari in the budget allocation for the year 2018-2019 and 2019-2020.

4. The counter affidavit has also been filed by the 2nd respondent. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, this respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.DP1/25032/3/2017 dated 17.10.2017 had issued instructions to the 1st respondent to pay monthly honorarium of Rs.12,000/- per month from the funds of the subject Math to the petitioner and that he should identify the subject Math lands situated at Karnataka State and to visit all the Revenue offices and to verify the Revenue Records whether the Math lands located at Karnataka State stand in the name of the subject Math, or not if not, to take necessary steps to include the lands in the name of the subject Math in Revenue records of Karnataka State under the authorization of the 1st respondent and also requested 1st respondent to take necessary action in this matter. It is further stated that earlier budget allocations have been made to the subject Math by 2nd respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.DP2/25032/06/2018, dated 17.07.2018 wherein there is no mention of honorarium to the petitioner for the grant of Rs.12,000/- per month. It is true that there is no provision in A.P.Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30/1987 for payment of honorarium to the Uttaradhikari post. But the 2nd respondent iss