*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA +WRIT PETITION NO.1864 OF 2008 % 04-02-2008 # L.S.Appasundaram ..Petitioner Vs. $ Sri Kalahastiswara Swamy Temple and Another ..Respondents. !Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri N.Guru Gopal ^Counsel for the respondent No.1 : Sri V.T.M.Prasad ^Counsel for the respondent No. 2 : Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments <Gist : >Head Note: ?Cases Referred: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.1864 OF 2008 Dated 4th February, 2008 Between: L.S.Appasundaram …Petitioner And Sri Kalahastiswara Swamy Temple and Another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.1864 OF 2008 O R D E R: 1. The matter is coming up for admission. Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice on behalf of the first respondent. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments takes notice on behalf of the second respondent. 2. Heard Sri N.Guru Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, representing the first respondent, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for the second respondent. 3. Sri N.Guru Gopal, learned counsel representing the petitioner, had taken this Court through Rule 39 of the Enquiry and Appeal Rules, 1989 (for short “the Rules”) and would maintain that in the light of the same, non-disposal of O.A.No.3 of 2007, on the file of the second respondent, in spite of repeated requests made by the petitioner cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also would submit that this is an obligation ordained by a statutory rule and non-compliance with the said Rule may have to be viewed with all seriousness. Learned counsel, on the issue, pointed out that the petitioner came to know that the Commissioner of Endowments had framed a charge against one Smt K.Jyothi, Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur, for not concluding enquiry within a period of six months. 4. Sri V.T.M.Prasad, the learned counsel representing the first respondent, would maintain that it is no doubt true that Rule 39 of the Rules has to be followed, but, however, depending upon the facts and circumstances, there may be delay in disposal of certain cases. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments would maintain that the proceedings initiated or applications filed under Sections 83, 87 and 133 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”) shall not be kept pending before the Deputy Commissioner for more than six months from the date of initiation of such proceedings or filing of such applications. However, the learned Assistant Government Pleader would request a reasonable time to be granted for disposal of the matter pending before the second respondent. 6. Heard the Counsel. 7. The writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the case in O.A.No.3 of 2007, on the file of the second respondent, in spite of statutory obligation on the part of the second respondent to conclude the enquiry, within a period of six months, as per Rule 39 of Enquiry and Appeal Rules, 1989, as illegal, arbitrary, void and amounts to harassment of the petitioner and consequently direct the second respondent to conclude the enquiry within a period of one month from today, so as to enable the petitioner to enjoy his property with full length and breadth and pass such other suitable orders. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that on 15-12-1928 and 25-10-1931 his grandfather, late Sri L.K.Annasami Mudaliar, and his grandmother, Ammayamma, had purchased a piece of land at Srikalahasti by way of registered sale deeds and they were in possession of the said property and they enjoyed the property from that date onwards. Thereafter being the only son, his father, L.M.Sambasiva Mudaliar, had been in possession of the said property and enjoyed the same without any interruption. After his death, the said property devolved on the petitioner and the petitioner had been enjoying the said property. Thus, from the beginning of 1928 and 1931 his grandparents, his father and the petitioner had been paying the municipal taxes and letting the shops and kalyanamandapam. The local persons, who want to grab the property, made certain attempts as the petitioner is not the local person and having failed in their attempts, instigated the first respondent-temple stating that the said property belongs to the temple. Without verification of the property register of the temple and without verifying the title, the temple authorities being carried away by such instigation filed O.S.No.29 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti for permanent injunction against the petitioner and two more defendants. The temple authorities had not sought for any declaration of title in their favour in the said suit. Further the temple authorities had got an ex parte ad interim injunction in the said suit for a period of 14 days. The petitioner filed a written statement and contested the matter. Since the temple authorities had not filed any extension petition, the interim injunction granted for a limited period was expired and it was not extended by the Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti. Issues were framed in the said suit and was posted for trial. Though the temple authorities had filed affidavit in chief, they could not come into the witness box for cross-examination for want of documents and they had not filed any piece of document tracing out their title or possession over the suit schedule property. Ultimately, the temple authorities had filed I.A.No.242/2007 seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the suit. After dismissal of the suit, the first respondent filed O.A.No.3 of 2007 before the second respondent, who is a quasi-judicial authority, under Section 87 of the Act with a prayer to (a) declare that the petition schedule property is a Charitable and Hindu Religious institution, but not a private property (b) declare that the petitioner temple is having right, title, interest or possession over the same (c) grant permanent injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the property or interfering with the possession of the Devasthanam. It is also the case of the petitioner that the second respondent is not authorized to grant prayers (b) and (c) specified above. Further it is the case of the petitioner that the above petition was filed before the Deputy Commissioner on 17-04-2007 and a notice was issued by the second respondent to him on 21-04-2007 and he filed vakalath and counter on 26-05-2007 and reported ready for further enquiry. Though the case was posted by the second respondent on 07-07-2007, 29-09-2007, 07-10-2007 and 29-12-2007, the first respondent had not moved an inch by way of filing chief affidavit, and the petitioner had reported ready on all the above dates. The case is posted to 16-02-2008 for the evidence of the first respondent. Further it is the case of the petitioner that showing pendency of the earlier suit and later on, the pendency of the present O.A, the first respondent is threatening the petitioner not to repair or reconstruct the old building bearing Municipal No.3-606 to 608 (old) new Nos.3-752 to 754 and 763. If anything happens to the old building, it will be hazardous to the persons who are running business in the property as tenants and the tenants of the petitioner are requesting him to get the building repaired as it is in a dilapidated condition. The enquiry before the second respondent, under Section 87 of the Act, is governed by the Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.651 Revenue (Endowments-I) Department dated 30-06-1989. The Rules have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 149 read with 153 of the Act. Rule 39 of the Rules reads as hereunder- “No proceedings initiated or application filed under Section 83, 87 and 133 of the Act shall be kept pending before the Deputy Commissioner for more than six months from the date of initiation of proceedings or filing of such application”. It is the further case of the petitioner that the second respondent is a quasi-judicial authority and is bound to follow the statutory rules framed for the purpose of conducting enquiry. Although the second respondent is bound to dispose of the main case, within a period of six months from the date of its filing, despite repeated requests, he is not further proceeding with the matter. The temple authorities are filing petition after petition against the petitioner without disclosing the title or possession over the property. Further, the case of the petitioner is that though Section 143 of the Act comes in their way, yet the temple authorities had filed the present O.A. With similar contentions, the first respondent filed O.S.No.598 of 2002 against one T.Thyagarajan and another, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, with regard to another property and after dismissal of the same, the temple authorities had filed first appeal and thereafter they filed S.A. No.1056 of 2006 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 04-12-2006 and the said judgment had attained finality. The Executive Officer who filed O.A.No.3 of 2007 is of the cadre of Regional Joint Commissioner and he is also the regular Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments Department, Tirupathi. The second respondent, who is the quasi-judicial authority, is of the cadre of a Deputy Commissioner and he is subordinate to the first respondent. The first respondent is influencing the second respondent not to conduct further enquiry knowing pretty well that if the enquiry is concluded, the case will be dismissed for want of evidence. Hence, though the petitioner requested, through his counsel, to take up the case for hearing, the second respondent expressed his inability to direct the first respondent to file his evidence affidavit as he is the immediate subordinate authority, though there are statutory instructions to complete the enquiry within a period of six months. In fact, the petitioner came to know that the Commissioner of Endowments had framed charges against one Smt K.Jyothi, Deputy Commissioner, Guntur for not concluding enquiry within a period of six months. Having no faith that the enquiry will be completed in the near future, the present writ petition is being filed. 9. Since it is stated that O.A.No.3 of 2007 is pending on the file of the second respondent, this Court is not inclined to express any opinion touching upon the merits and demerits of the matter. However, the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition had been dealt with supra. 10. In the above facts and circumstances, when a statutory rule i.e. Rule 39 of the Rules specified supra specifically ordains that the proceedings initiated or applications filed under Sections 83, 87 and 133 of the Act shall not be kept pending before the Deputy Commissioner for more than six months from the date of initiation of such proceedings or filing of such applications, it is needless to say that it is the bounden duty of the second respondent to follow the said Rule and complete the enquiry. The reasons, which had been specified in the affidavit, may be true or may not be true. However, this aspect need not detain this Court any further for the reason that the second respondent being a quasi-judicial authority is bound to follow Rule 39 of the Rules aforesaid. In view of the same, let the second respondent complete the enquiry, in accordance with Rule 39 of the Rules, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This period is also being granted at the request of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments. 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs. __________________ P.S.Narayana,J Dated 4th February, 2008 Note: Issue C.C in four days (b/o) vrn * L.R.Copy to be marked.