IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 26537 of 2007 Between: 1 Meka Sugunamma, W/o.Narasimhulu, of Radha Madhava Swamy Temple R/o.Penna Baddavolu(V), Kaluvaya(M),Nellore Dist 2 Marupuru Eswaraiah, S/o.Venkat Subbaiah, R/o.Penna Baddavolu(V), Kaluvaya(M),Nellore Dist 3 Chitalapalli Narasimhulu, S/o.Narsaiah, R/o.Penna Baddavolu(V), Kaluvaya(M),Nellore Dist 4 Ala Narsimhulu, S/o.Peda Yandaiah, R/o.Penna Baddavolu(V), Kaluvaya(M),Nellore Dist ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Regional Joint Commissioner Endowments,Multi Zone II,Tirupathi 2 Asst.Commissioner, Endowments,Nellroe Dist .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ,order or direction,more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus under Article 226 constitution of India by declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.A/1481/2007 dt.20-11-2007 as illegal,arbitrary and amounts to violative of principles of natural justice and cosequently direct the respondents to implement the order dt.8-4-2007 in Rc.A1/543/2007 dt.8-4-2007 and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.C.VANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.Nos.26537 of 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN) The petitioners, four in number, seek a direction from this Court to declare the action of the 2nd respondent, in issuing proceedings dated 20.11.2007, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. They seek a consequential direction to the respondents to implement the order dated 8.4.2007. Facts, in brief, are that the 2nd respondent issued a notification dated 20.2.2007 for constitution of a board of trustees for the Radhamadhava Swamy temple in Pennabaddavolu village, Kaluvaya Mandal, Nellore District. The petitioners herein were amongst several others who submitted their applications pursuant to the notification. The Inspector, Endowments caused an enquiry with regards the antecedents of the applicants and sent his report dated 9.4.2007 to the 2nd respondent. Thereupon the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 8.4.2007, constituted a board of trustees consisting of the petitioners and Sri Meka Surendra. Questioning the constitution of the board of Trustees Sri D.Venkatanarasaiah, and four others, filed R.P.No.28/07 before the 1st respondent who granted interim stay, of the order of the 2nd respondent, on 27.4.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed W.P.No.13905/07. This court disposed of the said writ petition directing the 1st respondent to dispose of I.A.No.28/07 in R.P.No.28/07 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The 1st respondent issued orders, in R.P.No.28/07 dated 29.9.2007, setting aside the appointment of Sri Meka Surender, one of the trustees appointed by the 2nd respondent and the revision petition was partly allowed directing the 2nd respondent to take further action in accordance with the rules. The 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 20.11.2007 stating that, in view of the interim order of stay passed by the 1st respondent, the Inspector, Endowments was not in a position to administer the oath of office and secrecy to the newly appointed trustees in accordance with Section 19(3), that they had failed to take the oath of office and secrecy within the stipulated period of 30 days and, as such, they ceased to hold office. Questioning the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 20.11.2007 as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. Smt.C.Vani Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, would submit that the 2nd respondent was obligated to administer the oath of office and secrecy under Section 19(2), that the petitioners could not be faulted for not taking the oath as the respondents were solely responsible for the inordinate delay in administering the oath much beyond the stipulated period of 30 days, that it was not as if the petitioners had failed to take the oath, that Section 19(3), whereby a trustee was required to take the oath of office and secrecy within 30 days from the date on which he was appointed, must be so read as to mean 30 days from the date on which a meeting is held to administer the oath, that the words “fail to take” would denote a deliberate act of refusal to take oath by the person appointed as a trustee, that cessation from office cannot be brought about by refusal or failure on the part of the designated authority to administer the oath, that any other interpretation of Section 19(3) would enable the designated authority to deny a person his right to hold office as a trustee merely by postponing the event of administering the oath of office beyond 30 days, that, in the present case, the petitioners, for no fault of theirs, were not administered the oath of office and secrecy and that the deliberate inaction of the respondents in this regard, if permitted to prevail, would render Section 19(3) meaningless. She would submit that the orders passed by the 1st respondent, in revision proceedings, had not been communicated to the petitioners, that the impugned order was passed due to political pressure, that the impugned order dated 20.11.2007 was in violation of principles of natural justice and was passed without application of mind. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioners ought to have been appointed as trustees much prior to 3.1.2008, the amended Section 15 was not a bar, that, even otherwise, the amended Section 15 did not prohibit appointment of trustees to a Section 6(c) institution and that the petitioners, having already been appointed, must be administered the oath of office and secrecy and permitted to function as trustees for the period prescribed under the Statute. On the other hand, the Learned Government Pleader for Endowments would submit that the 2nd respondent had authorized the Inspector, Endowments to convene a special meeting for election of the Chairman of the Trust Board on 28.4.2007 and to administer the oath of office and secrecy but one day earlier, i.e., on 27.4.2007, the 1st respondent had granted interim stay and, therefore, the Inspector could not administer the oath of office and secrecy. He would submit that, subsequently by order dated 29.9.2007, the Regional Joint Commissioner had set aside the appointment of one of the trustees Sri Meka Surender, that, by the time final orders were passed by the Regional Joint Director, the period of 30 days prescribed under Section 19(3) and the rules notified in G.O.Ms.No.369 dated 19.4.1989 had expired on 7.5.2007 and, as a result, the petitioners could not be appointed as trustees. He would draw our attention to the counter affidavit wherein the 2nd respondent had denied political pressure or that the impugned order was without authority of law. Learned counsel would submit that it was not permissible to read words into Section 19(3) as it was unambiguous and clear and, as the petitioners had not been administered the oath of office and secrecy by the designated authority within the statutorily prescribed period, they automatically ceased to hold office. He would submit that during the pendency of the writ petition, which was filed in December, 2007, Section 15 was substituted by Act 33/2007 with effect from 3.1.2008, that, under the amended Section 15(3), it was no longer mandatory for a Section 6-c institution to have a board of trustees, that a discretion was conferred, under Section 15, on the Deputy Commissioner to appoint or not to appoint a board of trustees, that such discretion was not unfettered and was to be exercised only if it was in the interest of the institution to have a board of trustees and that the petitioners could not claim, as of right, to continue to hold the office of trustees. Learned Government Pleader would submit that no mandamus could be sought against the Deputy Commissioner to exercise his discretion in a particular manner and that it was for him to decide whether or not a board of trustees should be appointed. Section 6 of Act 30/87 relates to preparation and publication of a list of charitable and religious institutions and endowments on the basis of income and, thereunder, the Commissioner is required to prepare separately and publish in the prescribed manner a list of charitable institutions and endowments. Charitable and religious institutions, whose annual income is below rupees two lakhs, fall under sub-clause (c) of Section 6. Section 19 relates to disqualification for trusteeship and, under sub-section (2) thereof, before a trustee enters his office the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner or any other person authorized by him in this behalf, as may be prescribed, shall administer the oath of office and secrecy. Under Section 19(3), any trustee who fails to take, within thirty days from the date on which he was appointed, the oath of office and secrecy, as laid down in sub- section (2), shall cease to hold office. While the submission of Smt.C.Vani Reddy, that a conjoint reading of Sections 19(2) and (3) would necessitate an interpretation that cessation from office would arise only if the appointed trustees deliberately refuse to take the oath and not in cases where the designated authority fails to administer the oath of office and secrecy, cannot be said to be without merit, it is wholly unnecessary for us to examine the scope and ambit of Sections 19(2) and (3), for, even if the interpretation placed thereupon by Smt.C.Vani Reddy were to be accepted, the petitioners would not be entitled to any relief in view of the amended Section 15 which was introduced by Act 33/07 with effect from 3.1.2008. Under the amended Section 15(2), while the Commissioner is required to appoint a board of five trustees where the income of the institution is between Rs.2.00 to 25.00 lakhs per annum, in cases where the income of the institution is less than Rs.2.00 lakhs per annum, a discretion is conferred on the Deputy Commissioner to constitute a Board of Trustees consisting of three persons in respect of each of such temples keeping in view the traditions, sampradayams and wishes of the devotees. Under the first proviso to Section 15(2), a further discretion is conferred on the Deputy Commissioner to appoint a single trustee, instead of a board of trustees, if it is in the interest of the institution or endowment or for any other sufficient cause or reason to be recorded in writing. As Section 15 of Act 30/1987 has conferred a discretion on the Deputy Commissioner to appoint, or not to appoint, a board of trustees for a religious institution, whose annual income is less than Rs.2.00 lakhs, it is not for this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a mandamus to the Deputy Commissioner to exercise his discretion in a particular manner or to substitute its discretion for that of his. It is no doubt true that Section 15 was substituted only after the petitioners were appointed as trustees. Since Section 15 of Act 30/87, as is in force today, does not permit appointment of a board of more than three trustees for a Section 6(c) temple, this Court would not be justified in directing the 2nd respondent to administer the oath of office and secrecy on the four petitioners or to direct them to permit the petitioners to hold office and discharge the duties of trustees. The petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to the relief sought for. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ___________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J April, 2009 asp