HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Contempt Case No.802 of 2011 Date: 06-9-2011 Between M.Raghurami Reddy … Petitioner/Petitioner and Sri Venkatesam, Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Chittoor and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Contempt Case No.802 of 2011 Judgment: This contempt case has been filed complaining that the respondents 3 and 4 have violated the orders of this Court dated 03- 12-2010 in W.P.M.P.No.38455 of 2010 in W.P.No.30194 of 2010. 2. In the said miscellaneous petition, this Court passed the following order: “Under those circumstances, the impugned order is suspended subject to condition the petitioner maintains the accounts of the temple properly and submits the same to the statutory authority and he shall open the Hundi in the presence of the authorized officer of the Endowments Department and utilize the open space meant for parking to ensure that the temple gets remuneration etc., the tickets printed for various ‘Sevas’ shall bear the stamp of the Endowments Department.” 3. The petitioner alleges violation pleading as follows: “Quite peculiarly, the 1st respondent, who is the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Chittoor and not a party to the writ petition, thought that the orders are not binding on him and he issued proceedings on 10-01-2011 to seal the hundis and the said direction was given to the 2nd respondent herein i.e., the Inspector of Endowments at Tirupati, who is also not a party to the writ petition. As per the directions given by the 1st respondent i.e., the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, the 2nd respondent herein affixed the seal on the locks of the hundis on 16-02-2011 and asked the petitioner to hand over the hundi keys. The petitioner showed him the order of this Court passed in W.P.M.P.No.38455 of 2010 in W.P.No.30194 of 2010, dated 03-12-2010 and when the said order was read over, the Inspector of Endowments bluntly refused to correct his action but instead, only said that he is bound by the directions given by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Chittoor and he is not bound by the orders of this Court.” 4. The respondents 3 and 4 filed Counter-Affidavits denying the allegations, inter alia, stating as follows: “It is general practice that the locks of hundis maintained in the temples will be sealed with wax by the concerned Inspector, Endowments Department and one set of keys will be handed over at the office of the Assistant Commissioner concerned for safety and another set of keys will be kept with the Management of the concerned temple. The same procedure is adapted to major temples like Sri Kalahastheeswara Swamy Temple, Srikalahasthi, Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy Temple, Kanipakam etc. Whenever the trustee or Executive authority proposes to open hundi, on information, the Inspector will receive one set of hundi keys at the concerned Assistant Commissioner and opens the hundi with another set of hundi keys kept with the trustee/Executive Officer, on the date fixed by the trustee/Executive Officer. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad issued circular instructions vide Rc.No.DP(1)/6729/2010 dated 21-4-2010 instructing that one set of hundi keys should be kept in the office of the concerned Assistant Commissioner. As such, the 3rd respondent, being competent authority under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987, issued directions to the 4th respondent i.e. Inspector, Endowments Department, Tirupati to affix seal on the locks of the hundis. The petitioner is put to strict proof to the allegations made on the 4th respondent. The petitioner has never shown the orders of this Court to the 4th respondent on the date of affixing the seal to hundi locks. Previously, the petitioner himself opened the hundi and shown nominal hundi income. He never maintained Hundi Register. He has shown hundi income below Rs.30,000/- per annum. But at the time of Sivaratri Festival two temporary hundis were installed, from which an amount of Rs.42,890/- was received through hundi, which clearly shows the mis-management and siphon of funds of the temple. The action of the respondents 3 and 4 in sealing hundi locks of the petitioner’s temple is as per the practice in vogue and it is being done in respect of other temples as well and it is not done specifically to the petitioner’s temple alone.” 5. By the aforesaid order, this Court granted conditional order enjoining the petitioner to maintain accounts of the temple properly and submit the same to the statutory authority. It is further enjoined that he shall open the hundi in the presence of the authorized officer of the Endowments Department. The petitioner does not allege that the respondents 3 and 4 prevented him from opening the hundi. He only says that they affixed a seal on the locks of the hundis. 6. As per the counter-affidavits extracted above, it is evident that seals are affixed as a matter of practice. The action taken by the respondents 3 and 4 apparently is to ensure safety and opening of the hundi in their presence as directed by this Court. Therefore, I do not see any ground to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents 3 and 4. 7. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 06th September, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Contempt Case No.802 of 2011 06th September, 2011. (Ak)