Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO, J
Khandavalli Ramachandracharyulu S/o. Late Rangacharyulu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Order :
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
“…..to issue a Writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings Rc.No.A1/10036/2014, dated 15-6-2015 passed by the 3rd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, lack of jurisdiction, non application of mind, usurping the powers of Tribunal and vioaltive of the provisions of Act 30 of 1987 and the Rules made there under and consequently set aside the proceedings of 3rd respondent dated 15-6-2015 and also the memo issued by the 4th respondent dated 30-6-2015….”
2. Brief facts of the case are that the 1st petitioner discharging the duties or Archaka in Sri Venkateswara Swamy temple, Kothapeta and Lord Venugopala Swamy Temple, Eatakota, East Godavari District (for short “subject temples”) on rotation basis. The petitioners 3 and 4 are also discharging duties in the temples on rotation basis along with the respondents 5 to 7. Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Kothapeta is classified as 6C temple. While things stood thus, the respondents 5 to 7 filed suit in O.S.No.88 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kothapet
The court ruled that the administrative authority exceeded its jurisdiction in determining hereditary rights, necessitating resolution by the Endowments Tribunal as per Act 30 of 1987.
The judgment clarified that the abolition of hereditary rights under the Act precludes claims to Archakatvam service based solely on lineage without meeting statutory criteria.
The court held that interim relief must be granted based on merit evaluation, and not merely on urgency, necessitating a proper hearing of both parties before the Tribunal.
Continuity of worship must be preserved during administrative inquiries, and appointments should be respected unless compelling irregularities are proven.
Point of Law- Notwithstanding anything contained in sub sections (1) & (2) of this Section, the qualified members of those Archaka families which were continuing in archakatvam service under the prov....
The court upheld the validity of the Deputy Commissioner's appointment of an Executive Officer under the Act, emphasizing adherence to statutory authority despite allegations of violation of natural ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
