IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 421 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/03/2009 in W.V.M.P.No.173 of 2009 in W.P.M.P.No.996 of 2009 in WP No : 790 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Jagarlamudi Narendranath S/o. Chandra Mouli R/o. Nava Bharath Nagar, II Lane, Ring Road, Guntur - 6. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Vinayashramam Kalyana Kavuru, Rep. by its Managing Trustee, Sri Tummala Tulasidas, S/o.Krishnaiah R/o.Kavuru, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur District 2 Tummala Tulasidas S/o. Krishnaiaah R/o.Kavuru, Cherukupalli Mandal Guntur District. 3 The District Collector & District Magistrate Guntur District. 4 The Joint Collector Guntur. 5 The Revenue Divisional Officer Tenali Guntur District. 6 Sri Gogineni Nageswara Rao S/o. Venkata Subba Rao R/o. Nadimpalli Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur District. 7 Pavuluri Siva Rama Krishnaiah S/o. Venkaiah R/o. Govada P.O., Amarthaluru Mandalam, Guntur District. 8 Pavuluri Bala Krishna S/o. Basavapunnaiah R/o. Govada P.O., Amarthaluru Mandalam, Guntur District. 9 Tummala Narendranath S/o. Veeraiah R/o. Kavuru, Cheruvukupalli Mandalam, Guntur District. 10 Gaddipati Pardha Saradhi S/o. Sri Krishna Devarayulu R/o. Kavuru Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur District. 11 State Bank of India Rep. by its Branch Manager Arumbaka, Cherukupalli Village & Mandal, Guntur District. 12 The Programme Coordinator Krushi Vignana Kendra Vinayashramam Kavuru Village, Cherukupalli Village & Mandal, Guntur District. 13 District Co-operative Officer Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.MOVVA.CHANDRASHEKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.S.MURTHY & WRIT PETITION NO : 790 of 2009 Between: 1 Vinayashramam Kalyana Kavuru,rep.by its Managing Trustee, Sri Tirumala Tulasidas, S/o.Krishnaiaha R/o.Kavuru, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur District 2 Tummala Tulasidas S/o.Krishnaiaah R/o.Kavuru, Cherukupalli Mandal Guntur District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, District Magistrate Guntur, Guntur District 2 The Joint Collector, Guntur 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, Guntur District 4 Sri Gogineni Nageswara Rao S/o.Venkata Subba Rao Ro.Nadimpalli village Cherukupalli Mandal Guntur District 5 Pavuluri Siva Rama Krishnaiah S/o.Venkaiah R/o.Govada P.O. Amarthaluru Mandalam Guntur District 6 Pavuluri Balakrishna S/o.Basavapunnaiah R/o.Govada P.O. Amarthaluru Mandalam Guntur District 7 Tummala Narendranth S/o.Veeraiah R/o.Kavuru Amarthaluru Mandalam Guntur District 8 Jagarlamudi Narendranath S/o.Chandramouli R/o.Navabharath Nagar II nd lane, Ring Road, Guntur-6 9 Gaddipati Pardha Saradhi S/o.Sri Krishna Devarayulu R/o.Kavuru village Cherukupalli mandal Guntur District 10 State Bank of India., rep.by its Branch Manager Arumbaka, Cherukupalli village and Mandal Guntur District 11 The Programme Coordinator, Krushi Vignana Kendra Vinayashramam,Kavuru village, Cherukurpalli Village and Mandal, Guntur District 12 The District Co-operative Officer,Guntur .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings bearing Rc.No.4638/2008/R dated 5.1.2009 issued by the 1st respondent and the consequential meeting alleged to have held on 12.1.2009 as illegal, arbitrary, and ultra virus to the provisions under Article 14 of the Constitution of India in violation of principles of natural justice besides by non est in the eye of law and consequently direct not to proceed further in pursuance of the said proceedings. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION & WRIT APPEAL NO : 422 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/03/2009 in WVMP No.332 of 2009 in WPMP No.1298 of 2009 in W.P. No: 1020 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Jagarlamudi Narendranath S/o.Chandramouli R/o.Navabharath Nagar IInd line,Ring Road, Guntur-6 ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Gaddipati Pardha Saradhi S/o.Sri Krishna Devarayulu R/o.Kavuru village Cherukupalli Mandal,Guntur District 2 The District Collector, & District Magistrate Guntur District 3 The Joint Collector,Guntur 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, Guntur District' 5 Vinayashramam Kalyanan Kavuru, rep.by its Managing Trustee,Sri Tummala Tulasidas,S/o.Krishnaiah R/o.Kavuru, Cherukupalli mandal Guntur District 6 Sri Gogineni Nageswara Rao S/o.Venkata Subba Rao R/o.Nadimpalli village Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur District 7 Pavuluri Siva Rama Krishnaiah S/o.Venkaiah R/o.Govada P.O. Amarthaluru Mandalam, Guntur District 8 Pavuluri Balakrishna S/o.Basavapunnaiah R/o.Govada P.O.Amarthaluru Mandal Guntur District. 9 Tummala Narendranath S/o.Veeraiah R/o.Kavuru cherukurpalli mandalam Guntur district 10 The District Cooperative Officer, Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.MOVVA.CHANDRASHEKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE & WRIT PETITION NO : 1020 of 2009 Between: Gaddipati Pardha Saradhi S/o. Sri Krishna Devarayulu R/o. Kavuru Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector & District Magistrate, Guntur, Guntur District. 2 The Joint Collector, Guntur. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenalia, Guntur District. 4 Vinayashramam, Kalyana Kavuvu, Rep. by its Managing Trustee , Sri Tummala Tulasidas S/o. Krishnaiah, Hindu, Aged 75 yrs, Occ: Cultivation R/o. Kavuru, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur District. 5 Gogineni Nageswara Rao S/o. Venkata Subba Rao, Hindu R/o. Nadimpalli Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur District. 6 Pavuluri Siva Rama Krishnaiah S/o. Venkaiah Amarthaluru Mandalam, Guntur District. 7 Pavuluri Balakrishna S/o. Basavapunniah R/o. Govada P.O, Amarthaluru Mandalam, Guntur District. 8 Tummala Narendranath S/o. Veeraiah, Hindu R/o. Kavuru, Cheruvukupalli Mandalam, Guntur District. 9 Jagarlamudi Narendranath S/o. Chandramouli, Hindu, R/o. Navabharath Nagar , II nd Lane, Ring Road, Guntur-6 10 The District Cooperative Officer, Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of the writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings bearing Rc No. 4638/2008/R dt. 5-1- 2009 issued by the 1st respondent and the consequential meeting held on 12-1-2009 as illegal, arbitrary and ultra virus to the provisions under Article 14 of Constitution of India and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct not to proceed further in pursuance of the said proceedings. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.RAVI KUMAR TOLETY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : . HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.A.No.421 OF 2009 & W.P.No:790 of 2009 & W.A.NO.422 OF 2009 & W.P.NO:1020 OF 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) W.A.421 of 2009 This appeal is filed by the appellant against the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.V.M.P.No.173 of 2009 in W.P.M.P.No.996 of 2009 in WP No: 790 OF 2009 on 25-03- 2009. Appellant herein is the 8th respondent in the writ petition. Respondents-1 and 2 herein are the writ petitioners. They have filed the writ petition challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent-District Collector, Guntur. While admitting the writ petition on 22.1.2009, this Court has granted interim order in W.P.M.P.No:996 of 2009. Having aggrieved by the same, the 8th respondent-appellant has filed the W.V.M.P.No.173 of 2009 seeking to vacate the interim orders dated 22-01-2009 passed in W.P.M.P.No.996 of 2009 in W.P.No.790 of 2009. The learned single Judge having observed that the power of the 1st respondent-District Collector was not traced to any of the Act and Rules, dismissed the vacate stay petition in W.V.M.P.No.173 of 2009 making the interim order dated 22-01- 2009 passed in W.P.M.P.No.996 of 2009 absolute. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is preferred by the 8th respondent in the writ petition. W.A.NO:422 OF 2009: This appeal is filed by the appellant against the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.V.M.P.No.332 of 2009 in W.P.M.P.No.1298 of 2009 in WP No: 1020 OF 2009 on 25-03-2009. Appellant herein is the 9th respondent in the writ petition. Respondent-1 herein is the writ petitioner. He filed the writ petition challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent-District Collector, Guntur. While admitting the writ petition on 27.1.2009, this Court has granted interim order in W.P.M.P.No:1298 of 2009. Having aggrieved by the same, the 9th respondent-appellant has filed the W.V.M.P.No.332 of 2009 seeking to vacate the interim orders dated 27-01-2009 passed in W.P.M.P.No.1298 of 2009 in W.P.No.1020 of 2009. The learned single Judge having observed that the power of the 1st respondent-District Collector was not traced to any of the Act and Rules, dismissed the vacate stay petition in W.V.M.P.No.332 of 2009 making the interim order dated 27-01- 2009 passed in W.P.M.P.No.1298 of 2009 absolute. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is preferred by the 9th respondent in the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel and perused the entire material available on record. It is contended by Sri Movva Chandra Sekhara Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant that being administrative authority, it is the responsibility of the District Collector to protect the Governments funds and therefore, the action of the District Collector cannot be found fault with and hence, the finding of the learned single Judge that the power of the Collector was not traced to any of the Act and Rules, is not correct and consequently, the order of the learned single Judge, is liable to be set aside. It is contended by Sri T.Ravikumar, the learned counsel for respondents-1 and 2-writ petitioners that 1st respondent trustee who is the writ petitioner No.1 in the writ petition that writ petitioner-trust is a private registered trust and the Collector has no jurisdiction to interfere or pass any orders relating to the administration or the management of a private trust and that the learned single Judge having appreciated the said aspect, admitted the writ petition and granted interim direction. Therefore, the order under appeal needs no interference by this Court. Since the issue involved in both the appeals, is common, with the consent of all the learned counsel, both the appeals as well the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the main question that arises for consideration in the appeal as well as the writ petitions, revolves around the issue as to the jurisdiction of the Collector. The fact that remains undisputed is that the 1st respondent-1st writ petitioner is a registered private trust under the Indian Trust Act. In this regard, it is relevant to go through the provisions of section 34 of the Indian Trust Act, which reads as under: “RIGHT TO APPLY TO COURT FOR OPINION IN MANAGEMENT OF TRUST PROPERTY: Any trustee may, without instituting a suit, apply by petition to a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for its opinion, advice or direction on any present questions respecting the management or administration of the trust property other than questions of detail, difficulty or importance, not proper in the opinion of the Court for summary disposal.” Thus, the above provisions makes it clear that competent authority, which is a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, is to look into difficulties arising out of the management or administration of the trust property and therefore, there is no othergo except to hold that the Collector, who has passed the order impugned, in both the writ petitions, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the administration and management of the said trust. In this view of the matter and in view of the fact that the dispute in question is primarily jurisdictional in nature, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Collector impugned in both the writ petitions declaring the same as without jurisdiction and non est. However, it is needless to observe that if any party is aggrieved, it is always open for such party to avail such remedy that is available under law. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed setting aside the orders impugned therein. Consequently, the present writ appeals are disposed of subject to the above observations. ___________________________ Justice T. MEENA KUMARI _____________________________ Justice VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 1st April, 2009. Dvs/Kh HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.A.No.421 OF 2009 & W.P.No:790 of 2009 & W.A.NO:422 OF 2009 & W.P.NO:1020 OF 2009 (Common Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Honourable Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) Dated 1st April, 2009.