IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1570 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26/09/2008 in WP NO : 20474 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M. Satya Venkata Sarma S/o. Late Suryanarayana R/o. Gundalavari Street Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department of Andhra Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Department of Andhra Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Government of Andhra Pradesh, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Regional Joint Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments, Kakinada 4 The Deputy Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments, Visakhapatnam. 5 The Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, M.J. Market, Hyderabad. 6 The District Collector, Vizianagaram District at Vizianagaram. 7 The Asst. Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments, Vizianagaram. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant : MR.B.SESIBUSHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1570 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 26-09-2008, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.20474 of 2008, dismissing the writ petition by imposing the costs of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only). 3. Appellant is the petitioner and the respondents are respondents in W.P.No.20474 of 2008. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the writ petition. 5. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is not only an Advocate by profession, but also Founder Secretary of Indian Temple Development Authority Union and Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Sai Social Service Society, Vizianagaram. It appears, there was some mis-appropriation of funds collected from the religious institutions in Vizianagaram District by the Inspector working in the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Vizianagaram. Subsequently, the seventh respondent, who took charge as the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Vizianagaram, initiated action against the said Inspector and as a consequence, the said delinquent had been reverted to the lower post and recovery also was effected. However, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 6 to initiate action against the seventh respondent. 6. The learned Single Judge, after an elaborate consideration of the matter and after going through the records, through the impugned order, dated 26-09-2008, dismissed the writ petition with costs. Hence, the present writ appeal. 7. Admittedly, it is the seventh respondent, who took charge as the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Vizianagaram, initiated action against the said Inspector and as a consequence, the said delinquent had been reverted to the lower post and recovery also was effected. Therefore, for all purposes, it is the seventh respondent, who is the instrumental in unravelling the corrupt activities of the delinquent and got him reverted to the lower post, apart from recovery of the mis-appropriated amount. However, the petitioner gave a paper publication making different kinds of averments, which is totally uncalled for. 8. In this regard, we feel it appropriate to extract the reasoning and the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: “In case, the petitioner came to know that the fee collected from the Temples was not remitted to the proper account, he could certainly have brought it to the notice of the concerned authority. The record placed by the learned Government Pleader discloses that soon after the present incumbent in the office of the Assistant Commissioner took charge, she initiated steps against the Inspector of Endowments Department and the same has led to remittance of a sum of Rs.2,20,067/- on 16.04.2007 and Rs.1,68,063/- on 07.05.2007. It is stated that the Endowments Inspector has since been reverted to a lower post, after conducting departmental enquiry. Had the petitioner taken the trouble of verifying these facts, there would not have been any necessity for him to publish a news item by incurring huge expenditure, much less, to publish the photograph of the officer. The tone and tenor of the notification published on 01.08.2008 is totally objectionable and does not befit that of an Advocate. The petitioner did not make any endeavour to know the various steps that were taken in the office of the 7th respondent. His object appears to be only to tarnish the image of the 7th respondent and harass her. The petitioner had exposed himself for being sued for defamation, apart from being prosecuted for such baseless activities.” 9. Obviously, the learned Single Judge, after perusing all the records, had expressed his satisfaction that it is only because of the seventh respondent, the irregularity committed by the delinquent had came to light and the mis-appropriated amounts also could be recovered from him. 10. Therefore, absolutely there is no reason either for the learned Single Judge, or, for that matter, for us to pass any order other than the impugned order. When the seventh respondent has nothing to do with the corrupt activities and, in fact, when it is the seventh respondent who brought to light the irregularities committed by the delinquent employee, what prompted the petitioner to interfere with the affairs of the Department and target the seventh respondent only. Obviously, there must have been some extraneous reasons for targeting the seventh respondent and there might be something more than what actually meets the eye. 11. The petitioner, being a responsible citizen in the society and belonging to a respectable profession, is not expected to resort to this kind of activity of scandalizing a responsible officer, like the seventh respondent, who has nothing to do with the mis-appropriation of funds, by giving such an elaborate paper publication along with a photograph of the seventh respondent. We are of the view that this conduct, on the part of the petitioner, is highly objectionable, uncharitable and most unbecoming. 12. When the learned Single Judge, after perusing the records, had arrived at a conclusion, there is nothing for us to examine any further and arrive at a different conclusion, particularly, when the action of the petitioner is highly despicable. 13. In view of the above, there are no merits in the writ appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed with exemplary costs, quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) payable to Sri Srirama Mandiram, Vizianagaram, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 28-11-2008. Msr. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1570 of 2008 28-11-2008 (Msr)