The court affirmed that members of a founder family have inherent rights to manage a temple, and actions taken without notice violate principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

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

“….to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing proceedings in Memo No A2/6548/2011/E0s Estt dated 20 09 2011 served on 24.02.2013 and the consequential proceedings in Memo No A2/3059/1991Admn dated 28.12.2012 issued by the 3rd Respondent is illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional violative of Sections 15 and 17 of the A P Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 and violative of Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to issue a certificate to the Petitioners as Members of the Founder Family of Sri Satyanarayana Swamy Temple Rudravaram Village and Mandal Kurnool District in the interest of justice and pass……

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioners great grandfather Gangisetty Timmaiah Setty constructed a temple of Sri Satyanarayana Swamy at Rudravaram Village and Mandal, Kurnool District in his own site, with his own funds with a conviction and belief that by such funding and serving Lord Sri Satyanarayana Swamy, hereditary would be placed with good progeny and prosperity and also constructed a Choultry, Residential Quarters abutting the temple for Archakas. Petitioners’ great grandfather also created endowments for the due maintenance of the temple and executed a registered Trust Deed whereby and where-under donated vast properties for performance of Nitya Dhupa Deepa Naivedyam and Utsavams in temple. After the death of the said founder, Sri G. Anjaneyulu, who was the petitioners’ grandfather served the temple as Hereditary Trustee during his life time. Further, the Petitioners’ father G. Venkateswarlu succeeded to the trustee and managed the temple during his life time and he passed away in the year 1990. The petitioners continue to manage the affairs of the temple as being the Members of the Founder family. It is further stated that earlier the petitioners’ father filed O.A.No. 14 of 1991 under Section 87(1)(c) of the Act 30 of 1987 praying to declare that petitioners family has right to honour and privilege to serve the Lord Sri Satyanarayana Swamy as Hereditary Trustee by managing the temple, choultry and the endowments of the temple and also other honours etc. The 3^rd Respondent served proceedings dated: 28.12.2012 along the proceedings of the 2^nd Respondent dated 20.09.2011 whereby and where-under informing the petitioners that the 2^nd Respondent issued proceedings to tag on Sri Satyanarayana Swamy Temple, Rudravaram Village and Mandal, Kurnool District to the 4^th Respondent Group Temples and requested the 3^rd Respondent to submit a report whether the orders are implemented or not, else, disciplinary action will be taken against him. It is stated that the petitioners are not served with the notice by the respondents before passing the order by the 2^nd respondent dated 20.09.2011. on information by the 3^rd respondent and on their request the 3^rd respondent served the impugned proceedings to the petitioners on 24.02.2013 informing that the 4^th respondent will take possession of the Sri Satyanarayana Swamy temple, its properties endowed by petitioners great grandfather and will conduct public auction etc. no notice or opportunity was given to the petitioners by the 2^nd respondent before passing the impugned order.Questioning the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

3. This Court, vide order, dated 14.03.2013, while issuing Rule Nisi, has granted status quo in WPMP No.9522 of 2013, as under:

“……WPMP No.9522 of 2013 The impugned order dated 20.09.2011 does not disclose reasons for tagging on the subject institution to other institution.

In the circumstances, status quo as on today shall be maintained until further orders”

4. The 2^nd respondent filed counter and denied all the allegations made