THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Writ Petition Nos.22938 of 2004 & 9701 of 2005 Date: 3rd October, 2007 Between :- W.P.No.22938/2004 Sri Ram Hanuman Matt rep. by its Mahant Rambharose Das .. Petitioner And The Commissioner of Endowments, Tilak Road, Hyderabad And 3 others .. Respondents W.P.No.9701/2005 Sri Hanuman Bhajan Mandali Rep.by its Secretary Sri Y.Ramdas .. Petitioner And The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, M.Z.III, Hyderabad and 3 others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Writ Petition Nos.22938 of 2004 & 9701 of 2005 COMMON ORDER:- W.P.No.22938/2004 is filed by Sri Ram Hanuman Matt represented by its Mahant Rambharose Das challenging the proceedings No.DD H-1/61706/2004, dt.22-11-2004, made by the Additional Commissioner of Endowments, Tilak Road, Hyderabad – the 2nd respondent in the Writ Petition as illegal, arbitrary and also prayed for the appropriate reliefs. 2. W.P.No.9701/2005 is filed by Sri Hanuman Bhajan Mandali represented by its Secretary Y.Ramdas praying for the Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed in I.A.No.14/2005 on the file of the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience) and pass such other suitable orders. 3. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.22938/2004 is shown as 3rd respondent in W.P.No.9701/2005. 4. W.V.M.P.No.1630/2005 is filed in W.P.No.9701/2005 by the 4th respondent to vacate the stay granted in W.P.M.P.No.12664/2005 in W.P.No.9701/2005 dt.26-4-2005. In W.P.No.22938/2004 rule nisi was issued on 10-12-2004 and on the self-same day interim suspension of proceedings dt.22-11-2004 had been granted. 5. Since both the matters are virtually concerned with the same subject matter, these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by a common order. 6. Heard Sri Narasimha Rao, Sri Raghuram, Sri Srinivas and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments, the Counsel representing respective parties. 7. Submissions at length were made in the light of the respective stands taken by the parties and also reliance was placed on certain decisions. 8. In W.P.No.22938/2004 the writ petitioner pleaded that the petitioner is Mahanth of the petitioner Math and he is questioning the proceeding dt.22-11-2004 aforesaid made by the 2nd respondent in appointing Executive Officer to the petitioner Math as illegal. It is stated that Shri Ram Hanuman Muth Temple was established by great Grand Guru Mahant Mohan Das Ji and the said Great Grand Guru was the jagirdar of the Shri Ram Hanuman Muth. It is also stated that late Mahant Mohan Das Ji was the sole Mahant and there are 3 Samadhis in the Muth belonging to Mohan Das ji, Rambarose Das ji and Moti Das ji. It is further stated by the petitioner that the Samadhis are respected and daily worship to the Samadhis is being performed by him being Mahant. It is also stated that the Muth is also having several Temples within its precincts and the pujas in the Muth are performed as per the Vaishnav Sampradaya. It is also further stated that the subject Muth is also registered with Endowments Department in F.No.16/2, Aukaf in the year 1345 Fasli as per the Muntakhab Kitabur aukaf was prepared by the Director of Ecliastical Department of Sarkar Ali Government. It is also stated that after the death of Mahant Moti Dasji, the petitioner was recognized as the Mahant of Shri Ram Hanuman Muth as per proceedings No.53/01/1957, dt.8-10-1960 passed by the Asst.Secretary, Board of Revenue Government of Andhra Pradesh and the wife of late Mahant Mohan Das Ji namely Smt.Hira Bai was appointed as guardian. It is also stated by the petitioner that he is managing the Muth and after he became major, he was also recognized as the Mahant of the petitioner Muth by the Endowments Department by proceedings in Defendant-292/192, dt.12- 5-1995. It is further stated that as per the provisions of the Act, the petitioner had been discharging his duties with utmost devotion and he had been managing the Muth including the Temple attached to the Muth and the income of the Muth is Rs.22,000/- per annum. It is also stated that it is relevant to submit that one Pilla Guru Murthy filed Revision Petition against the order dt.12-5-1995 recognising the petitioner as Mahant of Subject Muth before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-III, Endowments without any condone delay petition after a lapse of more than nine years and the said revision petition was filed on 14-9-2004. It is also stated that in the said O.A., Pilla Guru Murthy filed I.A.No.1371/2004 for a direction that the petitioner should not interfere with the traditional devotional activities of Shri Ram Hanuman Muth Temple like performing Abhishekas, pujas and Sevas which are being performed since last several years in the Temple. It is further stated that the said application was allowed by order dt.17-11-2004 by the 2nd respondent restraining the petitioner from interfering in any way with traditional and devotional activities of Shri Ram Bhakta Samajam, Nampally. It is also further stated that aggrieved by the said order dt.17-11-2004, the petitioner filed W.P.No.21732/2004 and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 26-11-2004 stating that the petitioner should not obstruct performance of pujas and Bhajans and further that under the guise of the said order, the said Guru Murthy or the Ram Bhakta Samajam shall not be entitled to interfere with the administration and management of the muth. It is also further stated that Chapter-V of the Act deals with Muths and Specific Endowments under Section 47 of the Act and it is also stated that “Mathadipathi” is defined as a person who is known as Mahant or by any other name in whom the administration and management of the Muth or specific endowment is vested and also further stated that in the light of the order dt.12-5-1995 of the department, no person can interfere with the administration of Sri Ram Hanuman Muth Temple. It is also further averred in para 5 that the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Hyderabad vide his proceedings Rc.No.D/927/04, dt.6-10- 2004, issued a notice to the petitioner to explain reasons for not intimating the department about the construction made by the petitioner without permission of the department along with copy of the MCH approval. It is also stated that the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Department, Hyderabad vide proceedings Rc.No.D/927/04 dt.10-11-2004 directed the petitioner not to restrain Rama Bhakta Samajam to perform Utsavams as usual and to work for improvement of the Temple and also directed to submit proposals for leasing out newly constructed building rooms in public auction as per rules along with an explanation as called for in the notice dt.6-10-2001 and the petitioner informed the authorities about pendency of R.P.No.1056/04 and requested for some time to submit his explanation. It is further stated that the sequence of events would establish that the said Pilli Gurumurthy or Ram Bakth Samajam is influencing authorities to interfere with daily administraton of the Muth, which is controversy to the Act. It is also further stated that while so, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings D.Dis.No.H-1/61706/04, dt.22-11-2004 stating that the 4th respondent is kept in full additional charge of the subject institution and that the said order is illegal inasmuch as the petitioner’s Mahantship was sanctioned as per proceedings dated 8-10-1960 issued by the Assistant Secretary, Board of Revenue, Endowments Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, and subsequently by proceedings dated 12-5- 1995, the petitioner’s Mahantship has been recognized. It is also stated that as already submitted, the very Section 47 of the Act clearly states that a Mahant is one in whom the administration and management of the Muth are vested. It is also stated that when the administration and management are already vested in the petitioner, there is no justification in the orders issued by the 2nd respondent keeping the 4th respondent in full additional charge of the Muth. It is also stated that there is apparent conflict in the order passed by the 2nd respondent while the petitioner is ready in managing and administration the Muth and further the petitioner had not been issued any notice by the 2nd and order is contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is further stated that while disposing of W.P.No.21732/2004 by order dt.26-11-2004 this Hon'ble Court was pleased to clearly observe that there shall not be any interference with the administration and management of the Muth and taking advantage of the order dt.22-11-2004, the respondent is trying to take charge from the petitioner. It is stated by the petitioner that he has not so far handed over the charge but however in the Caveat Petition filed by the 4th respondent it is stated as if the 4th respondent has taken charge. The petitioner also further stated that there is no justification or truth in the said statement made by the 4th respondent inasmuch as the petitioner is very much administering and in management of subject institution. It is also stated that the order dt.22-11-2004 was not brought to the notice of this Court on 26-11-2004 when W.P.No.21732/2004 was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court by the 4th respondent who filed a caveat in the said Writ Petition and the circumstances show that the order dt.22-11-2004 was not in existence as on 26-11-2004. It is also further stated that the order dt.22- 11-2004 refers to the report alleged to have been submitted by the Assistant Commissioner on 19-11-2004 and in fact, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments did not issue any notice to the petitioner before submitting his report to the 2nd respondent. It is also stated that the report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Hyderabad is behind the back of the petitioner Mutt and such a report is not binding upon the petitioner Mutt and basing on such report, 4th respondent cannot be put in full additional charge and the whole exercise was done contrary to the principles of natural justice. 9. The impugned order dt.22-11-2004 reads as hereunder:- Office of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P., Hyderabad D.Dis.No.H1/61706/2004, dated 22-11-2004. Sub:- Endowments Department – Sri Hanuman Temple, Goods shed, Nampally, Hyderabad – Sri A.Ashok, Executive Officer, Sri Hanuman Temple, Vijaya Nagar Colony, Hyderabad, kept in full addl.charge to the Temple – Orders – Issued. Ref:- Rc.No.E/927/2004, dt.19-11-2004 of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad. * * * In the circumstances, report by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad in the reference cited, Sri A.Asok, Executive Officer, Sri Hanuman Temple, Vijayanagar Colony group Temples is hereby kept in full additional charge of Sri Hanuman Temple, Goods Shed, Nampally, Hyderabad for better management of the institution. Sri A.Ashok, Executive Officer, is requested to assume complete charge of the Temple at once and report compliance. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad is requested to see that above orders are implemented forthwith. (BY ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER) Sd/- T.Shivaji, Deputy Commissioner (S) 10. In W.P.No.21732/2004, the learned Judge of this Court by order dt.26-11-2004 observed as hereunder:- “The petitioner challenges the very maintainability of the R.P. in relation to the Temple referred to above. The R.P. is at the initial stage. The maintainability of the same can certainly be raised before the first respondent. The petitioner is impleaded as the second respondent in the R.P. If the petitioner is able to persuade the first respondent with reference to the relevant provisions and facts that the revision is not maintainable, he can certainly be granted the necessary relief. This Court does not find it appropriate to interfere at this stage. Further, the purport of the order passed in the I.A., is only to enable the third respondent and other associates to perform pujas and bhajanas. It cannot be said that on account of performance of pujas and bhajans, the right of the petitioner is, in any way, jeopardized. To remove the doubts, it is made clear that the third respondent shall not be entitled to interfere with the management under the guise of the orders passed in the I.A. The first respondent shall expedite the disposal of the R.P. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.” 11. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, while denying the allegations, it is averred that the petitioner is styling himself as Mahant of Sri Ram Hanuma Mutt, which is not correct. Further it is averred that the facts is that there is no such institution in the name of Sri Ram Hanuman Mutt except Sri Hanman Temple, Nampally, Hyderabad to which Sri Rambharose Das has been functioning only as Pujari and therefore, as the institution is a Temple having been poublished as such under Section 6 (c) (ii) of the Endowments Act 30/87, the 1st respondent is competent the Executive Officer under Section 29 of the amts Act. It is also stated that the proceedings in D.Dis.No.H1/61706/2004, dt.22-11-2004 issued by the 1st respondent is quite legal, proper, justified and correctly issued in accordance with the provisions of the Endowments Act. While replying to the averments made in para 2 of the affidavit, it is stated that even according to file No.16/2 Awkaf 1345 Fasli maintained by the then directorate of Ecliastical Department, the institution was mentioned only as a Temple and Sri Rambharose Das was mentioned as Mutawalli i.e., the Trustee of the Temple and subsequently, the order was issued by the then Director of Endowments in Memo.No.53/D.1/1957, dt.8-10-1960, recognizing the petitioner Sri Rambharose Das as Mahanth of Sri Hanuman Temple situated the Nampally, but no where the institution was mentioned as Mutt and thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Twin Cities, Hyderabad recognized the petitioner as Mahanth of Sri Hanuman Temple only by his Rc.No.D/292/93, dt.12-5- 1995 and even by this proceedings also the institution was not mentioned as Mutt. It is also stated that even from the beginning the institution is being mentioned only as Sri Hanuman Temple and accordingly the Temple was also published u/s. 6(c) (ii) of the Endowments Act at Sl.No.613 and notification is being mentioned has also been issued in Rc.No.J3/6689/97 of Commissioner of Endowments and it was duly published by Gazette No.38, Dt.21-9-89. It is also stated that contrary to the contents of the records maintained by the Department even from the beginning, the petitioner with a malafide intention has falsely representing the institution as Mutt which is quite in correct and false. It is also stated that definition of the Trustee means any person whether known as Mattadipathi/Mahanth/Muntasim of by any other name includes a Board of Trustees. It is further stated that prior to the enforcement of the Endowments Act 30/1987, in some of the institutions, the trusteeship as well as the Archakatwam or the person performing the puja was held as hereditary but the said right was abolished by the provision laid down usn16 and 34 of the Endowments Act 1987 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India upheld the abolition of the Hereditary Trusteeship U/s.16 of the Act in Pannalal Bansilal Pitti vs. The State of A.P. (1996 (2) SCC. 498 – AIR 1996 S.C. 1023) on the ground that the appointment of the Trustee and carrying on the administration a secular activitiy and not interference with freedom of religion U/s.25(1) of the Constitution is caused by such abolition. It is also stated that similarly the Hereditary Right of the Archaka or Pujaris or Mahanths was abolished u/s.34 of the Endowments Act 1987 and the said Section was upheld by the Supreme Court of India in A.S.Narayana Deekshithulul vs. State of A.P. (AIR 1996 S.C., 1975). It is further stated that the Hereditary right of the petitioner if any in respect of the Temple in question having been abolished by the Endowments Act 1987 and the said abolition having been upheld by the Supreme Court, the petitioner has nothing to do with the Temple except continuing himself as Pujari or Archaka to render the service in the Temple if he is qualified duly passing the Archaka Examination conducted by the Endowments Department annually. It is also further stated that the petitioner is not qualified to do Archakatwam and therefore, he has no locus standi to question the appointment of an Executive Officer made by the 1st respondent u/s.29 of the Endowments Act 1987 which was also upheld by the Supreme Court in W.P.No.713/87 by Judgment dt.17-1-1996 (Pannalal Bansilal Pitti vs. State of A.P. (1996 (2) SCC. 498 – AIR 1996 S.C. 1023). In reply to para 3 it is stated that as already submitted, the petitioner on his representation dt.20-4-95 was recognized as Mahanth by Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Twin Cities, Hyderabad in respect of Sri Hanuman Temple for rendering pooja and he was permitted to succeed his predecessor as the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the abolition of the Hereditary rights were not received by that time and even in this orders also the institution was mentioned only as Sri Hanuman Temple correctly and no where it has been mentioned as Mutt as falsely represented and being canvassed by the petitioner. It is further stated that it is not correct that one Pilli Gurumurthy filed Revision Petition before Regional Joint Commissioner, M.Z-III, Hyderabad against the orders dt.12-5-1995 and the said Revision Petition is pending and during the pendency of the said Revision petition interim directions were issued by the Regional Joint Commissioner by his orders dt.17-11-2004 to the petitioner not to interfere with the traditional devotional activities in Sri Hanumant Temple like performing Abhiskam, Pujas and Sevas which are being performed since last several years interest Temple. It is also stated that the petitioner questioned this order in W.P.No.21732/2004 before this Hon'ble Court and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 26-11-2004 allowing Sri Pilli Gurumuthy to perform pujas and Bhajans without interference is continuing in the Temple, styling himself as a Matadhipathi and naming the institution as a Mutt and misleading the public and not allowing the devotees to perform puja in the Temple. It is also stated that the petitioner also started claiming proprietary rights in respect of Sri Hanuman Temple raising illegal constructions without the knowledge of the Endowments Department with the donations collected from the devotees illegally without bringing them to the Temple accounts. In reply to para 4, it is stated that the institution is only Sri Hanuman Temple duly coming under the definition of Temple and not a Mutt. It is also stated that the name of the institution has been continuously mentioned as Sri Hanuman Temple even from the beginning from all the documents and now it has been published as Sri Hanuman Temple u/s.6(c) (ii) of the Endowments Act and as such it is only a Temple and not a Mutt. It is further stated that the petitioner is styling himself that he is a Mahanth calling the Temple as Mutt and therefore he is falsely asserting that no person can interfere with the administration of the institution. It is also stated that, as already stated this is Sri Hanuman Temple, the 1st respondent is legally competent to appoint an Executive Officer under Section 29 of the Act and therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to question the said order. It is also stated that the petitioner is nor deriving any right as Matadhipathi by virtue of order dt.12-5-1995 of Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Twin Cities, Hyderabad as falsely represented by him as the said order simply states about his succession in respect of the said institution which was mentioned as Sri Hanuman Temple only but not as a Mutt. In reply to para 5 it is stated that the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad being the authority having administrative jurisdiction in respect of Sri Hanuman Temple published u/s.6(c)(ii) of the Act, he has correctly issued the notice dt.6-10-2004 to the petitioner asking him to explain the reasons for not intimating the Department about the illegal construction made by the petitioner. It is further stated that the Assistant Commissioner by his order dt.10-11- 2004 directed the petitioner who is continuing as unqualified pujari not to restrain Sri Ram Bhaktha Samajam and to work for improvement of the Temple and the petitioner was also asked to lease out the newly constructed rooms in public auction as per rules. It is also stated that instead of complying with the legal directions issued by the Administrative authorities of the Department, the petitioner styling himself as Matadhipathi and calling institution as Mutt has been interfering unduly with the usual religious activities being performed by the devotees and harassing them which is quite unjustified. It is also further stated that the institution is Sri Hanuman Temple situated at Goods shed, Nampally, Hyderabad and as seen from the old documents also it has been mentioned as Temple only and no where it has been mentioned either as a Mutt or either the petitioner or predecessors of the petitioner as Matadhipathi. It is also stated that as there used to be hereditary Mutawalliship in some Temples, the recognition was given to the successors for rendering pujapat which was misconstrued by the petitioner and began to call himself as Matadhipathi and the Temple as a Mutt. It is further stated that by virtue of the abolition of the Hereditary systems as upheld by the Supreme Court of India, the Hereditary rights of the Pujari also stood abolished statutorily and the petitioner has been continuing as a mere non-hereditary pujari with no qualification and that he has been interfering in the religious activities and performance of puja done by the devotees and also the development of the Temple questioning the jurisdiction of the Endowments Department also and he has been raising illegal construction also claiming proprietary right in respect of the Temple. It is also stated that it is only to set right the administration of the Temple on sound lines in accordance with the provisions of the Endowments Act, the 1st respondent in accordance with the powers vested in him appointed an Executive Officer in D.Dis.No.H1/61706/04 and the petitioner has questioned this order in this W.P. stating the said order is illegal because of his Mahanthship as sanctioned by the Assitatn Secretary by order dt.8-10-1960 and subsequently by Proc. Dt.12-5-1995 of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Twin Cities, Hyderabad. It is also stated that as already submitted the institution is only a Temple but not Mutt and as such the question of the petitioner continuing himself as Matadhpathi or Mahanth in the management of the Temple does not arise and his hereditary rights if any in respect of Temple already stood abolished and therefore he has no manner to continue in the management to the Temple. It is further stated that the 1st has legally exercised the powers in appointing an Executive Officer under the provisions of the Act and the petitioner has no locus standi to question legality of the said order and there is no necessity of issuing the notice to the petitioner as claimed by him regarding appointment of Executive Officer. It is also further stated that the petitioner is continuing as Pujari or non-hereditary Mahanth with no requisite qualifications and as such the 1st respondent has correctly assessed the necessity to set right the administration of the Temple and therefore appointed the Executive Officer by his Proc. Dt.22-11-2004. It is further stated that as already submitted the petitioner is not having any locus standi to question this order and therefore there is no necessity to issue a prior notice to him either by the 1st or 3rd respondents and therefore, the order dt.22-11-2004 appointing the Executive Officer in respect of Sri Hanuman Temple is quite proper, legal and binding on the petitioner. Further specific stand is taken that the petitioner rushed up to this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India without availing the alternative remedy of filing Revision Petition before the Government under Section 93 of the Act and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Reply affidavit also was filed by the petitioner in the said Writ Petition,