*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA +W.P.No.16618 of 2007 % 20-11-2007 # K.Ravinchandra Reddy and others .. Petitioners And $ Government of A.P. Revenue (Endowments-II) Department Represented by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents <GIST: >HEAD NOTE : ! Counsel for petitioners : Sri M.S. Prasad ? Counsel for respondents : G.P. for Endowments for R-4 : Sri V.T.M. Prasad for R-6 : Sri Subba Reddy ?CASES REFERRED : 1 (1996) 4 SCC 17 2 (1997) 4 SCC 1 3 AIR 1963 S.C., 1313 4 AIR 1966 S.C., 282 5 AIR 1965 Punjab 433 6 1965 (1) MLJ, 137 7 1956 (2) MLJ, 194 8 1965 (2) AWR 423 9 1966 (2) MLJ, 431 10 1964 (2) MLJ, 426 11 AIR 1966 Punjab 393 (at Delhi) 12 AIR 1959 Allahabad 71 13 AIR 1994 Punjab & Haryana 242 14 AIR 1957 Rajasthan 27 15 1996 (4) SCC 17 16 1997 (4) SCC 1 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.16618 of 2007 Date : 20-11-2007 Between : K.Ravinchandra Reddy and others .. Petitioners And Government of A.P. Revenue (Endowments-II) Department Represented by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.16618 of 2007 ORDER:- 1. K.Ravichandra Reddy and 16 others filed the present Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent in G.O.Rt.No.1515, dt.16-7-2007 as illegal, null, void and opposed to Section 19(e) of Act 30 of 1987 insofar as it relates to 6th respondent herein and pass such other suitable orders. The 6th respondent is one M.Jagannadha Reddy. 2. This Court issued rule nisi on 6-8-2007 and granted interim order for a limited period in W.P.M.P.No.21166/2007 and subsequent thereto on 21- 8-2007 the interim order granted earlier was extended until further orders. 3. The 4th respondent – Sri Swayambu Sri Varasiddhi Vinayaka Swamy Temple, Kanipakam, filed W.V.M.P.No.2308/2007 to vacate the interim order. Likewise, the 6th respondent filed W.V.M.P.No.2077/2007 to vacate the interim order. Counter affidavits are filed by R.1, R.2 and a common reply affidavit also was filed by the writ petitioners. 4. The learned Counsel on record made elaborate submissions and at the request of the Counsel, the Writ Petition itself had been taken up for final hearing. 5. Contentions of Sri M.S.Prasad:- Sri M.S.Prasad, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners had taken this Court through G.O.Rt.No.1515, dt.16-7-2007 and would maintain that the said impugned order issued by the 1st respondent so far as it relates to the 6th respondent is concerned, being opposed to Section 19(1) (e) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter, in short, would be referred to ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience) is invalid. The Counsel also would maintain that inspite of the representation made by petitioners 2 and 17 by furnishing the various Judgments showing the conviction and confirmation thereof of the 6th respondent and despite the fact that the said offence is an offence involving moral turpitude, the 1st respondent proceeded to issue the impugned G.O., and hence the same cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel made elaborate submissions on the aspect of the scope, ambit and definition of the expression “moral turpitude” and also further had taken this Court through the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and would maintain that an offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship would definitely be an offence involving moral turpitude and hence the Writ Petition to be allowed. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the counter affidavits filed by R.1 and R.2 would go to show that despite the fact that the 6th respondent incurs disqualification, somehow or other, the official respondents are interested to see that the 6th respondent is continued instead of taking appropriate steps in this regard to rectify the grave illegality committed by them. The learned Counsel also would comment that even without verifying the antecedents properly, the concerned authorities had further proceeded with the matter. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through Sections 18, 19 and 28 of the Act and would comment that inasmuch as rule nisi had been issued, the question of driving the writ petitioners to an alternative remedy normally would not arise. Even otherwise, the learned Counsel would maintain that this is not a case of subsequent disqualification after appointment, but a disqualification which was incurred by the 6th respondent long prior to the appointment and which, in fact, was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities inclusive of the Minister concerned by making due representations. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the contents of the representations in this regard. The learned Counsel also would maintain that instead of giving an effect to the Legislative intent, the authorities are trying to explain the situation so as to convince this Court that the rigor of the offence with which R.6 had been charged in a way had been watered down by the Apex Court. This approach adopted cannot be sustained. While further elaborating his submissions, the learned Counsel also had taken this Court through Sections 149 and 153 of the Act and the relevant Rules framed in relation to Section 28 of the Act. When the facts are not in dispute, to contend that this involves mixed questions of fact and mixed questions of law and further enquiry would be necessary, cannot be a sustainable contention. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the long lapse of time also cannot be taken advantage of by the 6th respondent since that is not the Legislative intent. The learned Counsel also commented that there are some Legislations where after a particular period such disqualification would cease, but when the provision is clear and categorical, what is not there in the provision cannot be read into and the provision as such may have to be given effect to and if the Legislative wisdom thinks otherwise to bring in suitable amendment in this regard, it is left to the Legislative will and it is not for the Courts and when once this Court is satisfied that the provisions relating to disqualification is applicable to the 6th respondent, it may have to be declared that the appointment of the 6th respondent by the impugned G.O., is invalid and the same to be quashed. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on certain definitions in relation to moral turpitude in certain of the Dictionaries and the like. 6. Contentions of the learned Government Pleader for Endowments:- The learned Government Pleader for Endowments had taken this Court through Section 19(1)(e) of the Act and would maintain that the expression moral turpitude had not been defined under the Act and hence, the Dictionary meaning of the same may have to be looked into. The learned Government Pleader also would submit that while deciding whether an offence would fall under the category involving moral turpitude, the gravity of the offence or seriousness of the charge may not be relevant, but facts of the case may have to be looked into. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments also had taken this Court through the relevant portions of the counter affidavits of R.1 and R.2 as well and also had pointed out to certain portions of the counter affidavit of R.4 as well. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments also further pointed out the relevant portions of the findings recorded by different Courts inclusive of the Apex Court and would maintain that from the very tenor of the order made by the Apex Court, it is clear that the offence would not fall under the moral turpitude at all. The learned Government Pleader would maintain that the moral standards also change with the changing society and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. The learned Government Pleader also relied upon PAWAN KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER[1] and ALLAHABAD BANK AND ANOTHER v. DEEPAK KUMAR BHOLD[2]. 7. Contentions of Sri V.T.M.Prasad:- Sri V.T.M.Prasad, the learned standing Counsel representing R.4 would maintain that these writ petitioners have no locus standi at all to maintain the present Writ Petition and the Writ Petition is not a bona fide one. Further, these writ petitioners have no interest in the institution or the welfare of the institution. The learned standing Counsel also would contend that certain of the writ petitioners booked as accused along with R.6 in the episode of kidnapping, such parties coming before this Court would reflect the malafide intention and lack of bona fides. The learned standing Counsel also had taken this Court through the counter affidavits and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order not to be interfered with. 8. Contentions of Sri Subba Reddy:- Sri Subba Reddy, the learned senior Counsel representing R.6 would submit that the 1st and 3rd writ petitioners also figure as accused in the prior criminal proceedings along with R.6 as well. These are all close relatives and because of the differences, unnecessarily, this litigation had been thought of though there is sufficient long lapse of time. The learned senior Counsel also would submit that certified copies of the Judgments had not been produced by the Assistant Commissioner, but some Xerox copies had been submitted and in the light of the same, the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner cannot be found fault. The learned senior Counsel also would submit that there was no proper material placed before the Government to arrive at a particular conclusion and even otherwise, when once appointment had been made, there is no question of a Writ Court disqualifying such Trustee or Chairman, as the case may be, straightaway, and the procedure as contemplated by Section 28 of the Act and the Rules framed there-under, may have to be followed. In other words, the learned senior Counsel would maintain that unless and until the procedure as ordained by the statutory provisions and the Rules framed there-under had been followed, there is no question of straightaway disqualifying the 6th respondent in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned senior Counsel also would submit that the concept of moral turpitude may have to be understood in the social context, especially, in the light of the present era of globalization. The learned senior Counsel also pointed out that the concept of moral turpitude may have to be understood in the context of the Society and what a prudent man may think of a particular episode. Here is a case where there was some dispute relating to forcible marriage in between the relatives and though it had resulted in conviction which ultimately had been confirmed with some modification by the Apex Court, the observations made by the Apex Court would go to show that the same ended in a happy marital tie and this aspect also to be taken into consideration and if the facts are carefully analyzed, the stand taken by the writ petitioners that the 6th respondent to be disqualified on that ground, cannot be a sustainable ground. The learned senior Counsel further made several elaborate submissions making certain Pouranik references also in this regard. 9. Heard the Counsel, perused the pleadings of the parties and also the records produced by the learned Government Pleader for Endowments and the records relied upon by the parties. 10. At the outset it may be appropriate to have a look at G.O.Rt.No.1515, dt.16-7-2007, which reads as hereunder:- GOVERNMENT OFANDHRA PRADESH ABSTRACT Endowments Department – Chittoor District – Sri Swayambu Sri Varasiddhi Vinayaka Swamy Temple, Kanipakam, Chittoor – Constitution of Trust Board – Orders – Issued. REVENUE (ENDTS.II) DEPARTMENT G.O.Rt.No.1515 Dated:16-7-2007 Read the following 1. G.O.Rt.No.618, Rev.(Endts.II) Department, dt.24-3-2007 2. From the CED, Hyderabad Lr.No.H3/13904/2007, dt.5-7-2004. ORDER: In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of the sub-Section (1) of the Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30/87) read with amended Act 29/2000, the Government of Andhra Pradesh hereby constitute a Board of Trustees to Sri Swayambu Sri Varasiddhi Vinayaka Swamy Temple, Kanipakam, Chittoor with the following members: 1. Sri Manipi Jagannadha Reddy, S/o.Ramakrishna Reddy 2. Sri Challagundla Ramurthy Naidu, S/o. Lingam Naidu 3. Sri Galla Satyanarayana, S/o.Ramanadaiah 4. Sri Nallapothula Praveen, S/o.Soundaraja Naidu 5. Smt.Mannavara Sreevalli, W/o.N.R.Jayadeva Naidu 6. Sri Laxmaiah Srihari, S/o.Lakshmaiah 7. Sri Poojari Gangulaiah, S/o.P.Abbai 8. Sri Velkuru Muniratnam Reddy, S/o.Rami Reddy 9. Sri Kasuchetty Venkateswara Prasad, S/o.K.R.Venkatesulu 2. The above Trustees shall hold the office for a period of two (2) years with effect from the date of taking of oath of office and secrecy. 3. The Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad shall take steps to administer the oath of office and secrecy to the persons appointed as Trustees in para (1) above and also election of the Chairman to the above Trust Board as per the provisions of Section (20) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30/87) and the Rules made thereunder. (BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH) I.V.SUBBA RAO PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. Further it may be appropriate to have a look at Rc.No.b3/1320/2007 Adm., dt.1-6-2007 of the Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Chittoor, and the same reads as hereunder:- Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Chittoor Rc.No.B3/1320/2007 Adm., Dt.1-6-2007 Sub:- Endowments Department – Constitution of Trust Board to Sri Swayambu Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy Temple, Kanipaka (v), Irala (m), Chittoor District – Criminal record and particulars of M.Jagannadha Reddy, S/o.Rama Krishna Reddy, resident of Kanipakam – request not to appoint him as Member of Chairman of Trust Board – certain information called for. Ref:- Lt.Dt.9-4-2007 from Sri G.Muna Swamy Naidu, Kakarlavaripalle and Sri L.Gopinath, Ex-Sarpanch, Kanipakam. -: o0o :- The attention of Sri G.Muna Swamy Naidu, Kakarlavaripalle (v) and Sri L.Gopinath, Ex- Sarpanch, Kanipakam are invited to the reference cited and they are requested to furnish the copies of Judgment order dt.23-9-1987 in S.C.No.104/86 on the file of Asst. Sessions Judge Court, Chittoor and Judgment dt.21-4-1998 in Crl.A.No.91/1987 on the file of District Sessions Judge at Chittoor, High Court Judgment dt.6-3-1995 in Crl.A.No.332/95 on the file of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and also copy of FIR No.34/2007 on the file of Irala Police Station to this office immediately for verification and for taking further action of the subject matter. Sd/- Assistant Commissioner (FAC) The representation made by 2nd and 17th writ petitioners dt.9-4-2007 and also the relevant Judgments of the prior criminal proceedings also had been placed before this Court. It may also be appropriate to have a glance at the Judgment made by the Apex Court and the same reads as hereunder:- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPEELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.332 OF 1995 Arising out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No.1022 of 1989 Poornachandra Reddy & Ors. .. Appellants Versus State of Andhra Pradesh .. Respondents O R D E R Leave granted. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of conviction recorded by the Courts below. Affidavits have been filed both by appellant No.8 as well as the prosecutrix and their parents. According to those affidavits, the parties are closely related and the prosecutrix and the appellant No.8 have since got married and their marriage is subsisting. Keeping in view all these factors, we consider it appropriate to reduce the substantive sentence imposed upon the appellants except A.4 and A.6, whose sentence was reduced by the High Court itself, to the period already undergone by them. The appeal is, therefore, allowed to the limited extent that the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by the High Court on appellants A.1, A.2, A.3, A.5, A.7 and A.8 is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants shall be released from custody forthwith, if not required in any other case. Sd/- (A.S.ANAND) Sd/- M.VENKATACHALA New Delhi 6th March, 1995 11. The Writ Petition was filed by 17 writ petitioners and the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition was sworn to by the 17th writ petitioner. It is stated that all the writ petitioners are local residents of Kanipakam village and surrounding villages and the petitioners are the devotees of the 4th respondent and contributing lot of services and interested in the welfare of the Temple in order to develop the institution Temple since most of the petitioners’ family have been rendering services to the Temple from decades together even when the Temple was not taken over by the Endowments Department. It is also stated that there is no individual interest or individual cause of action and this Writ Petition is being filed with common interest to protect and safe-guard the interest of the Temple and the petitioners will not get any individual benefit, but in the interest of the 4th respondent Temple, which is common cause, the petitioners were forced to file this Writ Petition. Further it is averred that for the development of the 4th respondent Temple, the petitioners 1 to 3 and 5 have parted with their valuable lands in Land Acquisition proceedings at a lower price than the market rate and further their families are permanent Ubhayadarulu to the Temple. It is also stated that the other petitioners being villagers of Kanipakam and other nearby villages are also Ubhayadarulu of various Vahanam on caste basis. It is further stated that the 4th respondent Temple was constructed and developed by the local villagers of Kanipakam and adjacent villages. It is also stated that the forefathers of the petitioners have also contributed certain funds and rendered voluntary services for its development and that the petitioners are worshipping the God and rendering their services voluntarily as and when required and as such they are interested in the welfare of the Temple. It is also averred that in fact, some of the petitioners have brought to the notice of the higher officials about the irregularities committed by certain officers and previous trust board and that the higher officials of the Endowments Department have taken prompt action and rectified the irregularities. Further it is also stated that the 16th petitioner donated Adhikara Nandhi Vahanam by spending Rs.1,20,000/- from his own earnings and the said Vahanam being used during Brahmotsavam period every year. It is further stated that the father of the 2nd petitioner and his uncles have donated valuable pieces of land adjacent to the Temple and they constructed compound wall to the Temple and a big chowltry which was handed over to the Temple along with some valuable land on free of cost by the 2nd petitioner and the Temple is getting more than Rs.1,30,000/- at present as rent for the shops raised in the said land. It is also averred that the 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.618, dt.26-3-2007 inviting applications from the interested persons for the constitution of Trust Board to the 4th respondent and knowing that the 6th respondent has applied for becoming member of the Trust Board and Chairman in response to the above notification and that the 2nd petitioner and this 17th petitioner had sent a detailed representation dt.9-4- 2007 along with four Court Judgments and FIR Copy to the Hon’ble Minister for Endowments and respondents 1 to 3 through registered post against 6th respondent and all of them received the said representation. It is also averred that in the said representation, they have requested them not to appoint 6th respondent as Member of Trust Board or Chairman of the Trust Board to 4th respondent Temple by narrating the following facts:- a) That the 6th respondent was 3rd accused in Crime No.19/1982 on the file of Puthalapattu P.S., under Sections 366 IPC (kidnapping, abducting or inducing women to compel her marriage), 392 IPC (Punishment for Robbery), read with 109 IPC (Punishment for abetment) and charge sheet is filed before Assistant Sessions Court, Chittoor. The above crime is numbered as S.C.No.104/86. After full fledged trial, the 6th respondent and others were convicted and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years on two counts i.e., under Section 366 r/which 109 IPC and under Section 420 IPC vide Judgment dt.23-9-1987. b) Against the above said conviction, the 6th respondent and others have filed Criminal Appeal No.91/87 on the file of Sessions Judge, Chittoor and the appellate Court in its Judgment dt.21-4- 1988 confirmed the conviction given under Section 366 IPC. c) The 6th respondent and other accused have approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing Criminal R.C.No.182/88 against the conviction confirmed by the Appellate Court and this Hon'ble Court confirmed the conviction and reduced the sentence as rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on 19-4-1989. d) The 6th respondent filed SLP (Criminal) No.1022/1989 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was numbered as Criminal Appeal and ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Judgment dt.6-3-1995 reduced the period of sentence to the period already undergone by him. The conviction was not reversed and as such the 6th respondent had undergone sentence imposed by the criminal Court for the offence under Section 366 IPC which is a crime against women and the said offence involving moral turpitude and the conviction and sentence not reversed by the Courts. Therefore, the 6th respondent is disqualified under Section 19(3) of the Endowment Act, 1987 and he cannot be appointed as Member of Trust Board or Chairman of the Trust Board in the interest of the Temple in view of the disqualification. e) Further, a case is registered at Irala P.S., vide FIR No.34/2007 dt.1-4-2007 against 6th respondent and others under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA)Act 1989 and 506 IPC on a complaint given by Scheduled Caste Woman Sarpanch of Kanipakam Gram Panchayat. It is further averred in para 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that inspite of bringing the above said facts to the notice of respondents 1 to 3, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.1515 dt.16-7-2007 constituting Board of Trustees to 4th respondent Temple in which the 6th respondent is the first person among the nine persons and he was elected as Chairman to the Trust Board. It is also further stated that the appointment of the 6th respondent as Trustee and Chairman of the Trust Board is clear contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987. Further it is stated that the intention of the Legislature is very clear that persons having criminal record or involved in criminal cases for an offence involving moral turpitude cannot be considered in the interest and management of the Temples. Section 19 of the Act 30 of 1987 deals with disqualification for Trusteeship and the 6th respondent is disqualified under Section 19(1)(e) of the said Act. It is also stated that if the management of the Temple is entrusted to such a person, the Sanctity and reputation of the Temple will be damaged since it is clear violation of the Act and prescribed norms. It is also averred that the 3rd petitioner herein also accused in the above said criminal case along with 6th respondent and they have also suffered the conviction and sentence and in fact, 3rd petitioner herein could not get VAO Post on that ground alone though he worked as V.M. earlier. Further it is also averred that on the representation dt.9-4-2007, the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in Rc.No.B3/1320/07, dt.1- 6-2007 requested them to furnish the copies of all Judgments and also FIR No.34 of 2007 on the file of Irala P.S., for verification and taking further action on the subject matter and that they submitted all the four Judgments and FIR Copy in Crime No.34/2007 to R.3 on 5-6-2007 and received acknowledgement to that effect. Further it is stated that inspite of the above said fact, the petitioners came to know that the 3rd respondent recommended the name of