The appointment of a 'Fit Person' for managing the Mutt was not justified due to the absence of a temporary vacancy, emphasizing the importance of recognizing legitimate claims for succession under relevant laws.

ORDER :

KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J.

Heard Sri C.R.Sridharan, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.V.S.Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing for the respondents.

2. Challenging the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent dated 16.02.2025, appointing a ‘Fit Person’ for better administration of the Srimad Virat Pothuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamy Mutt, the instant Writ Petition is filed.

3. It is contended that there is no dispute amongst the family members of the deceased mathadhipathi of Veera Brahmendra Swamy Mutt. After the death of the Mathadhipathi on 08.05.2021, the Endowments Department appointed a fit person on 12.06.2021 to manage the affairs of the Mutt.

4. Challenging the said appointment, the petitioner herein, along with her minor son, filed W.P.No.12609 of 2021. The said Writ Petition was allowed setting aside the proceedings of the Dharmika Parishad and leaving it open to the Dharmika Parishad to reconsider and pass resolutions in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

5. Aggrieved by the same, Appeal in W.A.No.535 of 2021 was filed. The Writ Appeal was also disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners herein to file their objections and the same were directed to be considered. The Dharmika Parishad was directed to consider the same in light of the provisions of the Act, without reference to any of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.12609 of 2021.

6. It is contended that, pursuant to the said order of the Division Bench, the 3^rd respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner to the office of the Mathadhipati. Thereafter, vide proceedings dated 29.11.2021, the 3^rd respondent issued two orders:

“(i) Appointing the 4^th respondent as a fit person on a temporary basis for day to day management of the mutt, and

(ii) Appointing the Joint Commissioner of Endowments, as the authorized officer to convene a meeting of the mathadhipathis of the other mutts of the same sampradayam and disciples of the Mathadhipati, and submit a report to the 4^th respondent to proceed further to recognize the person nominated, in the said meeting, as Mathadhipati.”

7. Challenging the same, the son (through second wife) of deceased Mathadhipathi Sri N. Govinda Swamy filed W.P. No.29071 of 2021, and the deceased’s first wife’s son Sri Noosam Venkatadri Swamy filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.42248 of 2021, each of them claiming Mathdadhipathyam. This Court, vide order dated 09.12.2021, passed an interim order observing that the appointment of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments as a ‘Fit Person’ shall remain in force till the disposal of the Writ Petition.

8. The said Writ Petitions were disposed of on 03.10.2024, dismissing the Writ Petition. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner and the respondents to raise objections available under law by filing a civil suit before the competent Civil Court, subject to the law of limitation. Against the said orders, the writ petitioners in the said Writ Petitions, filed appeals in W.A.No.1066 of 2024 and W.A.No.3 of 2025. The Writ Appeals were disposed of observing that:

“21. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to modify the orders of the learned single judge with the following directions: (i) The claimants, who are claiming succession over the post of Mataadhipathi, through their documents, shall approach the competent Civil Court to undergo the test of eligibility and to prove their respective succession.

(ii) In the meantime, the claimants shall put-forth their claim before the Dharmika Parishad for appointment of Mataadhipathi, as per S