THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

WRIT APPEAL No.823 OF 2025

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated

18.09.2024, passed in W.P.No.18336 of 2019 by a learned Single

Judge of this Court.

2. Heard Sri L. Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s. Manu Legal Solutions, appearing for the appellant, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Ch. Satish Kumar, learned

Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.4.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant had contended that the appellant is a Mutt registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 and respondent No.2 has appointed an Executive Officer to the appellant-Mutt. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that respondent No.2 has no power or jurisdiction to appoint an Executive Officer to the appellant-Mutt. Aggrieved by

the appointment of an Executive Officer to the appellant-Mutt, without issuing any notice to the appellant and without any power to respondent No.2, the appellant has filed the subject W.P.No.18336 of 2019. The learned Single Judge of this Court instead of adjudicating the case on merits as to whether respondent No.2 has any power to appoint an Executive Officer to the appellant-Mutt or not, has simply dismissed the Writ Petition as vide infructuous impugned order, dated 18.09.2024, with an observation that Executive Officer has already been appointed to the appellant-Mutt and that possession of the appellant-Mutt has vide already been taken panchanama.

4. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the learned Single Judge was of the view that the subject matter of the Writ Petition has become infructuous, but the subject matter of the Writ Petition has not become infructuous. In the Writ Petition, the prayer of the appellant is to declare the appointment of Executive Officer to the appellant-Mutt as without any sanction of law. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have examined whether respondent No.2 is competent to appoint an Executive Officer to the appellant-Mutt or not. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the impugned order, dated 18.09.2024.

5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 had contended that since the Executive Officer has already taken charge of the appellant-Mutt by conducting a detailed panchanama, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the subject Writ Petition as infructuous. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that as the appellant is challenging the very appointment of Executive Officer to the appellant-Mutt, the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the subject Writ Petition as infructuous. Even if the Executive Officer has taken charge of the appellant- Mutt, still the learned Single Judge ought to have adjudicated the issue as to whether respondent No.2 is having any authority to appoint an Executive Officer to the appellant-Mutt or not. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if the impugned order, dated 18.09.2024, is set aside.

7. Accordingly, the order, dated 18.09.2024, passed in W.P.No.18336 of 2019 by the learned Single Judge of this Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge to adjudicate the Writ Petition on the issue as to whether respondent No.2 was justified in appointing an Executive Officer to the appellant-Mutt or not.

8. With the above observations/directions, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. Since the subject Writ Petition is of the year 2019, the learned Single Judge is requested to dispose of the subject Writ Petition as ex