*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

+WRIT PETITION No.26132 of 2013

Between:

#Sri Sitarama Swamy Temple, ...PETITIONER

AND

$The Principle Secretary and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 07.02.2025

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgments?

- Yes -

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law

Reporters/Journals

- Yes -

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair

copy of the Judgment?

- Yes -

___________________________________

DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

* THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO +WRIT PETITION No.26132 of 2013 % 07.02.2025 # Between:

#Sri Sitarama Swamy Temple, ...PETITIONER AND $The Principle Secretary and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri N.A. Ramachandra Murthy ! Counsel for Respondents: GP for Endowments

? Cases referred: 1. 2015(6) ALD 282 APHC010337292013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3310]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 26132/2013 Between:

Sri Sitarama Swamy Temple, ...PETITIONER AND The Principle Secretary and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. N A RAMACHANDRA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. V T M PRASAD

2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following:

ORDER :

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

“……to or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in appointing the 5th respondent as a single trustee of the petitioner temple by proceedings RC No A1/8877/2013 dated 08.08.2013 is illegal and arbitrary and violative of article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India Consequently set aside the same and pass….”

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3^rd Respondent in appointing the 5th Respondent as a Single Trustee of the petitioner temple vide proceeding Rc. No.A1/8877/2013 dated 8-8-2013. The petitioner’s Great Grandfather by name Sri Chelakani Dhramrayanam was constructed the petitioner Temple. Being founder, he was continued as Managing Trustee. After demise of his great grandfather as a successor of the Founder Trustee of his grandfather, his father was appointed as a founder trustee. After demise of the petitioner’s father his mother was looking after the affairs of the temple as a successor, now recently she was also died leaving behind the petitioner and his brother. Since his brother has no interest to continue as trustee he appointed the petitioner as managing trustee being successor of petitioner’s mother. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, as the Archaka of the Temple trying to alienate the property of the petitioner temple, they have resisted by filing a suit in O.S.1088/2000 for permanent injunction which was decreed in favour of the temple. Questioning the said decree they preferred appeal which was rejected for want of pecuniary jurisdiction and same was carried to this Hon'ble Court by way of CRP which is pending. In spite of injunction granted by the competent civil court the petitioners are obstructing to cultivate the lands. Therefore, they filed EP.No. 125/2008 for arrest in violation of court orders which was dismissed against which the petitioner filed CRP.No.2180/2013. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent at the instigation of unsuccessful parties in civil litigation, has been initiated impugned proceedings, basing on the alleged report, submitted by the 4th respondent, vide Rc No.A3/6493/2013 dated 27.7.2013 which was not known to the petitioner. It is further stated that the high handed action of the 3^rd respondent in appointing the 5^th respondent as a Single trustee of the petitioner temple amounts to termination of petitioner’s successive founder trustee, it is utter violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and against pr