HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.15684 OF 2009 Date:23.10.2009 Between: Smt E.Mahila Devi .... Petitioner. And: The Commissioner of Endowments, Boggulakunta, and 2 others. ....Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.15684 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. This Court issued Rulenisi on 07.08.2009 and granted interim suspension in W.P.M.P.No.20600 of 2009 for a period of three weeks initially which is being extended from time to time. 2. The 1st respondent in the writ petition filed W.V.M.P.No.2950 of 2009 to vacate the interim order. Likewise, the respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition filed W.V.M.P.No.2558 of 2009 to vacate the interim order. 3. Reply affidavits also had been filed by the respondents. 4. At this stage, the counsel on record made submissions elaborately and further made a request for the final disposal of the writ petition. Hence the writ petition itself is being disposed of finally. 5. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad in D.Dis.No.G2/252380/09, dated 20.06.2009 extending the period of adoption of Sri Kirlampudi Choultry, Arampudi Annavaram, East Godavari District for a period of three years, as bad, illegal, arbitrary and pass such other suitable orders. 6. As already aforesaid, the respondents along with Vacate Stay petitions, filed counter-affidavits and reply affidavits were also filed. 7. Sri M.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the respective stands taken by the respondents in their counter-affidavits and also the averments made in the reply affidavits as well and would maintain that this is a typical case where the fate of the institution in question is being dictated and decided by the respondents in an arbitrarily fashion without following the procedure in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel had also further taken this Court through Section 145 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the purpose of convenience and explained the scope and the ambit of the said provision in detail. The learned counsel would also maintain that it is no doubt true that the writ petitioner Smt E. Mahila Devi had given consent for the adoption of the institution in question, under peculiar circumstances and to say that such consent was given for adoption in perpetuity definitely cannot be sustained. The learned counsel would also further explain that when the adoption was being approved for a further limited period and being extended for a further period, it is the bounden duty of the 1st respondent to give notice to the writ petitioner, hear the objections if any and pass a speaking order. The learned counsel would also further maintain that the pumping of the huge funds and the way in which the affairs are being carried on would clearly go to show that the very object and the purpose of the constitution of the institution in question in a way is being defeated. Incurring of huge expenditure itself cannot be a ground for the adoption of the institution. In the event of non-extending of adoption for further period, an independent Executive Officer can be appointed to manage the affairs of the institution. If the actual challenge is carefully examined, it is against the wishes of the members of the Founder’s family the extention was made and in a way, the same can be said to be malafide. Several supplementary reasons are being furnished in the counter affidavits and these reasons had not been recorded in the order under challenge. The learned counsel also explained under what circumstances, Smt E. Mahila Devi filed the writ petition No.15456 of 2006 and had also further drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant definitions under Section 2 of the Act and also Sections 3,4,6,7,8,15,29 and 153 of the Act and would further maintain that at any rate in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order under challenge cannot be sustained. The learned counsel had also taken this Court through the language employed in Section 145 (1) of the Act and specifically pointed out to the proviso and further pointed out to the language employed in Sub Section (3) of Section 145 of the Act. The counsel further specifically pointed out the right of the petitioner as per Sub-section (4) of Section 145 of the Act and ultimately the learned counsel would maintain that in the light of the same, the order under challenge is liable to be quashed, since the same was not made in accordance with the law. 8. The learned Government Pleader for Endowment would maintain that in the light of the language employed in Section 145 (1) of the Act, it is the discretion of the 1st respondent while making an order of adoption for a limited period and subsequently to extend for further limited periods. At any rate, the discretion was exercised properly by the 1st respondent especially in the light of the reasons which had been clearly spelt out in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. For the purpose of extension of the period of adoption, the consent of the writ petitioner may not be necessary, but the 1st respondent may consider the request of the writ petitioner, in the light of the Section (3) of Section 145 of the Act. At any rate, the question of putting the family members of the Founder family on notice may not arise, especially in a case of this nature wherein only the adoption already made, is being extended for a further limited period, in the light of the facts and circumstances well explained. The learned Government Pleader for Endowment would also maintain that the real grievance of the petitioner is not spelt out either in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition or in the reply affidavits filed. It may be the intention of the writ petitioner to get back the management of the institution. The learned Government Pleader would further maintain that the steps have been taken only with a view to improve the institution, but it cannot be said that steps have been taken for commercial activity. The learned Government Pleader would also maintain that no period as such is prescribed under Section 145 of the Act. It is no doubt true that in the present case, initially the adoption was made for a period of three years and the same is being extended for a further period of three years. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments had also taken this Court through the contents of the representation made by the writ petitioner while requesting for the adoption to be taken. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments had also pointed out to the contents in W.P.No.15456 of 2006 and would further maintain that it is not the case of the writ petitioner that the rights of the writ petitioner are closed once for all. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments had also pointed out that the stand taken by the writ petitioner about her consent not being given, is not a correct stand and explained the same. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments had also specifically pointed out about the extent of land, the litigations, the income which was being derived by the institution prior to adoption, the improvements made in this regard and several other details, as specified in the counter- affidavit of the 1st respondent. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments had also pointed out to the general powers of the 1st respondent and further pointed out to Sections 6,8 and 29 of the Act. Thus the learned Government Pleader would contend that inasmuch as the discretion was exercised properly by the 1st respondent, the order under challenge cannot be attacked on the ground of either violation of principles of natural justice or on the ground that the same is not a speaking order. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Sri V. Venugopala Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 would maintain that the facts of the case to be carefully analysed. The writ petitioner is a old aged lady and the institution was not getting any income at all and there was lot of litigation and therefore, a request was made to adopt the institution and the said request was made voluntarily by the writ petitioner. The learned standing counsel representing the respondents 2 and 3 had also pointed out to the contents of the writ petition No.15456 of 2006. The learned standing counsel would also point out that the 1st respondent made the order of extention of adoption even prior to receiving of the representation made by the writ petitioner. Hence there was no occasion to consider such objections if any raised by the writ petitioner. The learned standing counsel also would maintain that as on today there are no rules or guidelines relating to the aspect of amalgamation or adoption. The learned standing counsel would also point out specifically to the representation made prior to the order of the adoption being made by the 1st respondent and would maintain that in the light of the language employed in the representation, it is clear that the very intention of the writ petitioner initially was to give the Choultry in question in adoption in perpetuity and the reasons as to why a different stand is being taken now, the same is un-known. At any rate, the same is not bonafide and hence in the facts and circumstances of the case, especially in the light of the fact of the several developmental works are in progress, if for any reason, the order of adoption made by the 1st respondent is to be disturbed by this Court, the institution will suffer. The learned standing counsel also placed strong reliance on different provisions of the Act and ultimately would maintain that inasmuch as the very object with which the institution had been established since the same is being well continued, the order under challenge cannot be found fault and hence the writ petition is to be dismissed. 10. Heard the counsel. Perused the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The averments made in the respective counter-affidavits and also the reply affidavits and other material papers placed before this Court. 11. The relief prayed for in the writ petition had been already specified supra. Smt E. Mahila Devi is aged about 80 years and she is the Founder Trustee of Kirlampudi Choultry, Arampudi, Annavaram, Sankavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. The writ petitioner Smt E. Mahila Devi was recognized as a Founder Trustee by the Proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowment in Rc.No.A5/9497/96 dated 22-10-1996 dated 22.10.1996 and the subject institution Sri Kirlampudi Choultry is an institution that is registered under the provisions of the Endowments Act 17 of 1966 and the subject institution was established about 150 years back by late Raja Inuganti Rajagopala Venkata Narasimha Raja Bahadoor of Kirlampudi who was the Jaminar of Kirlampudi. The subject institution was established much prior to the installation of Sri Veera Venkat Satyanarayana Swamy at Annavaram and the subject institution is older than the subject temple at Annavaram. The institution in question was established with the sole aim of providing shelter to the way-farers who travel from Kasi to Kanyakumari in addition to give a free feeding to the persons who stay in the choultry. It is the case of the petitioner that one of the aims and objectives of the subject choultry is also poor feeding and also feeding to the persons visiting Annavaram. Thus the choultry in question was constructed by the petitioner’s family members with a noble objective of providing shelter and also food to the persons who stay in the choultry without collecting any money. 12. It is stated that the institution in question was constructed by one late Raja Inuganti Rajagopala Venkata Narasimha Raja Bahadoor of Kirlampudi and had endowed an extent of Acs.103.62 cents out of which Acs.55.51 cents is wet and Acs.48.11 cents is dry. The objective of endowing these lands in favour of the institution was with aim that the usufruct that is derived from these lands is to be spent for maintenance of the institution and also fulfilling the objectives of the poor feeding, which is also indicated in the aims and objectives while establishing the institution. Thus this institution at Aramputi Annavaram is very popular in Annavaram and also caters the need of the pilgrims who also visit Annavaram. 13. It is further stated that never at any point of time any amount was collected since while establishing this institution the original founder had endowed a certain extent of land which would also accrued to the benefit of the choultry. Thus it has got to be understood that the institution had to be maintained from the usufruct derived from the lands that are endowed in favour of the institution. It is also stated that since beginning of the institution till date the institution is being maintained by the members of the family of the Founder and even presently the petitioner who is the Founder Trustee is managing the said institution in her capacity as Founder. 14. It is also further sated that while things stood thus the huge extent of land to the tune of Acs.103.62 cents endowed in favour of the institution was occupied by the tenants who were providing a very meager amount which was far from the regular expenses that was required for maintenance of the subject institution. The petitioner had been submitting the accounts of the choultry every year and budget sanction was also taken from the competent authority under the provisions of the Act every year in strict conformity with the provisions of the Act and contributions were also paid regularly based on the income hat is derived from the subject institution. That was the reason as to why the Government after due consideration had exempted the subject institution from the provisions of Sections 15 and 29 of the Endowments Act and by virtue of the same the Founder Trustee was managing the subject institution without any let or hindrance. 15. It is further stated that though the institution has fairly good extent of land which was sufficient and comfortable to maintain the choultry on its own without any collection of any money from the public, with an aim of developing the institution and to see that the administration of the institution is streamlined on a proposal made by certain well-wishers and since there was an imminent threat by some antisocial elements to grab the land belonging to the choultry the petitioner had agreed to give Sri Kirlampudi Choultry, Arampudi Annavaram in adoption to Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devastanam, Dwaraka Tirumala, West Godavari District for a period of three years. The proposals made were accepted by the Founder Trustee saying that it must help the institution to regain its glory since by virtue of the administration taken over by the 2nd respondent Devastanam the steps that would be taken to increase the revenue of the institution by either evicting the tenants or pursuing them to pay higher rents as lease for cultivating the lands belonging to the choultry. 16. The Founder Trustee who is the petitioner in good faith agreed for such an adoption that is likely to be given in favour of a major institution like Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devastanam, Dwaraka Tirumala. The said action of the petitioner was in the sole aim that the institution which has huge landed property would be utilized in toto and the revenue that is likely to be increased would extend to the benefit of fulfilling the aims and objectives of the institution. It is also stated that on mutual consent the office of the Commissioner of Endowments issued proceedings of Adoption by his proceedings in D.Dis.No.A3/25242/06, dated 26.06.2006 wherein Sri Kirlampudi Choultry was ordered to be adopted to Sri Venkateswra Swamy Devastanam, Dwaraka Tirumala for a period of three years. 17. It is further stated that the term of the adoption by the 2nd respondent had come to an end on 25.06.2009 and after the period is completed the only option left over to the 2nd respondent Devastanam is to hand over the choultry back to the petitioner for maintaining the same. It is stated that the petitioner must have received a letter from the Commissioner Endowments and also the 2nd respondent Executive Officer asking her to take over the management of the institution after the expiry of the term of three years term adoption which was on 25.6.2009, the silence on the part of the 2nd respondent had caused certain suspicious in the mind of the petitioner which prompted her to know to what exactly is happening relating to the issue of adoption of Sri Kirlampudi Choultry as she expected some attempts were being made to see that subject choultry that Sri Kirlampudi Choultry remains in the hands of the 2nd respondent Devastanam and steps were being taken to extend the period of adoption in favour of the 2nd respondent Devastanam without the consent of the Founder Trustee. 18. It is also stated that the petitioner expecting some mischief from the respondents had given a letter to the Commissioner of Endowments on 19.06.2009 wherein it was requested that the choultry i.e., Sri Kirlampudi Choultry to which the petitioner is the Founder Trustee be given back to the Founder Trustee for managing the same. The Commissioner of Endowments accepted the representation of the petitioner but to the utter surprise of the petitioner, an order was passed on the very next day of receiving the representation for adopting the institution to the 2nd respondent Devastanam was extended for a period of three years commencing from 26.06.2009. 19. It is further stated that the petitioner had collected the report submitted by he 2nd respondent Devastanam relating to the issue of adoption and to the utter surprise it was written that the Founder Trustee has given his consent for extending the period of adoption for a further time which is absolutely false since the petitioner was never called at any point of time, nor she was asked to express her opinion on the extension of adoption, but contrary to the wishes of the Founder, the Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent Devastanam had mislead the Commissioner of Endowments and played fraud by submitting a report that the petitioner had given her consent for the extension of the adoption of the subject institution. 20. On the fraudulent report, the Commissioner of Endowments had extended the period of adoption under Section 145 of the Endowments Act by extending the period of adoption of Sri Kirlampudi Choultry, Arampudi Annavaram for a further period of three years inspite of the petitioner expressing her intention not to extend the period of adoption in favour of the 2nd respondent Devastanam. It is further sated that the action of the 2nd respondent in writing a report contrary to the facts on records and not taking the consent of the petitioner Founder Trustee is a malafide, illegal and arbitrary exercise which was purely aimed either benefiting the 2nd respondent in some way or another or to grab the choultry and its properties by preventing the original donor and Founder Trustee to manage the institution. The whole exercise that is undertaken by the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent accepting the recommendation of the 2nd respondent is nothing but an action that is aimed at using the institution for their personal gains thereby destroying the institution and also wipe out the total aims and objectives of the founder wherein a noble gesture of poor feeding was to be undertaken in the choultry. Hence this writ petition is filed. 21. The impugned order reads as hereunder: Office of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P., Hyderabad D.Dis.No.G2/25238/2009, dated 20.06.2009 Sub: Endowments Department – Aoption of Sri Kirlampudi Choultry, A. Annavaram, East Godavari District to Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam, Dwaraka Tirumala, West Godavari District – Exetended for another (3) years – Orders – Issued. Ref: Rc.No.C2/2631/2006, dated 16.06.2009 from the Executive Officer, Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam, Dwaraka Tirumala, West Godavari District. * * * * * * In the circumstances reported by the Deputy Commissioner & Executive Officer, Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam, Dwaraka Tirumala, West Godavari District in the reference cited and exercise of the powers vested in him under U/s.145 of the APC & HRI and Endowments Act 30/87, the Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P., Hyderabad is pleased to extend the adoption of Sri Kirlampudi Choultry, A.Annavaram, East Godavari to Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam, Dwaraka Tirumala, West Godavari District for another period of thee years, i.e., from 26.06.2009. Member of the Founder’s Family of Sri Kirlampudi Choultry, A. Annavaram, East Godavari District and the Deputy Commissioner & Executive Officer, Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam, Dwaraka Tirumala shall take further action accordingly. (By order of the Commissioner) Sd/- A. RAGHAVACHARYULU, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMN) Sd/- Superintendent. 22. It is pertinent to note that these proceedings were issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad and a copy of the same was marked to the Member of the founder family of Sri Kirlampudi Choultry, A.Annavaram, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 23. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is stated that the Founder Trustee of the Choultry submitted a representation on 13.6.2006 requesting the Devasthanam to take the choultry in adoption as she is aged about 78 years in 2006 and was not able to manage the Choultry affairs as member of Founder Family. She also expressed her inability to maintain the choultry in a proper way because of the fact that she was aged about 78 years and she wanted to settle down with her husband at Hyderabad and secondly the landed property admeasuring about Ac.103.62 cents belonging to the said Choultry was under the possession and enjoyment of the tenants who were paying a meager rent of Rs.3,090/- p.a for the entire land and also the income was not sufficient for the maintenance of the choultry which is in a dilapidated condition and also that she did not have proper staff having experience to administer the property, she having decided to handover the said choultry in adoption to the Devasthanam, had requested the Chairman of the 2nd respondent Devasthanam to give their consent for adoption, expressing her full confidence in the said Devasthanam for the due upliftment and maintenance of the choultry. 24. It is further sated that the said choultry is having huge landed properties to a tune of Ac.103.62 cents, which were fetching very meager rent of Rs.3,090/- p.a as represented by the petitioner herself. The Executive Officer of the Devasthanam reported that the Devasthanam initiated proceedings for taking over the lands and conducting public auction afresh in which the Devasthanam succeeded to increase the income of the Choultry from Rs.3,090/- to Rs.5,75,000/- p.a. The choultry in question is having the following landed properties. Wet : Ac. 55-51 cents Dry : Ac.48-11 cents. ________________ Total: Ac.103.62 cents. 25. It is further sated that after the institution was taken in adoption by the 2nd respondent steps have been taken to lease out the lands in public auction. Accordingly notification to lease out the land in public auction has been issued and when public auction was proposed to be conducted on 31.7.2006 at Eluru village of East Godavari District, the Sub Inspector of Police, Prathipadu has informed that there are factions in the village, a police picket has also been arranged for maintenance of Law and Order and further requested to postpone the auction and accordingly the auction was postponed. 26. It is also stated that again the auction was conducted on 27.7.2007 at Rajahmundry and the same was published in Eenadu daily on 6.7.2007. It is