The Endowment Commissioner's appointment of a Fit Person to administer a religious institution was found illegal, undermining the fundamental right to manage religious affairs.

1. As the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, and therefore, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order.

2. Since the facts in both the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore WP No.17993 of 2013 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, the Petitioner/Aashramam is located in an extent of Ac.45.00 cents at Yerpedu Village and Mandal, Chittoor District. The activities undertaken by the Aashramam/Math are being appreciated and no exception or complaint is made by disciples or donors or beneficiaries of the activities of Petitioner/Aashramam. It is stated that, earlier. One Sri Munirathnam Naidu, who himself styled as Ramananda Swamy, who was looking after the construction work at Go-Garbham, Tirumala belonging to this Petitioner/Aashramam, collected lakhs of rupees from devotees and swallowed the same. Then the petitioner removed the said Ramananda Swamy as he misappropriated the donations. Later, as the said Ramanadha Swamy started iIn interfering with the administration of Petitioner/Aashramam the petitioner/Ashramam filed suits and restrained the said persons from interfering. Having failed in his attempts, the said Ramananda Swamy encouraged some unknown persons to complain against Petitioner/Aashramam with false and baseless - iimaginary allegations. Later, as per the directions of the 1st Respondent, the officials of Police Department and Education Department, conducted enquiries and held that the allegations are baseless and incorrect, But, again the said persons have filed a petition with same set of allegations before the Hon’ble Human Rights Commission. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Commission called for report from the Respondent herein and later as per the directions of the 1st respondent, the Inspector of Endowment Department, Tirupathi , on 10.02.2010 has conducted enquiry and submitted a report to the Hon'ble Commission vide Letter in Rc.No.H2/2178/2010, dated 11.08.2010 While so, again the same set of allegations were leveled against the Petitioner/Aashramam and in spite of earlier enquiry reports, the 1st Respondent appointed the 2nd Respondent as an Enquiry Officer and the 2nd Respondent completed the enquiry, except submitting report. At that time, the 2nd Respondent herein expressed his inability to conclude the enquiry as he received threatening calls from the persons who made baseless allegations against the Petitioner/Aashramam. Accordingly, the 1st Respondent, contrary to provisions of Endowments Act, appointed another Enquiry Officer and directed to start enquiry afresh, through Proceedings in Rc. No.B1/47/2013, dated 22.01.2013. In view of the circumstances, the petitioner has preferred WP No.2245 of 2013 before this Court, and this Court, vide order dated 01.02.2013, after considering the material on record and also considering the facts and circumstances, has suspended the operation of the impugned order and the 3rd respondent was refrained from proceeding any further in the matter.

4. While the matter stood thus, the 1st Respondent through impugned proceedings appointed the 3rd Respondent herein as Fit Person / In-charge of the Petitioner/Aashramam and directed to assume the complete charge of administration of the Petitioner/Aashramam. The sum and substance of the impugned order is that there are certain allegations on the Secretary of the Petitioner/Aashramam, viz., S. Amaranatha Reddy and basing on a report of the Regional Joint Commissioner/2nd Respon