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 MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22395 of 2008 Between: Poojari Narayana S/o. Nallappa Old Town, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kurnool. 2 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ananthapur. 3 The Board of Trustees, Sri Nallalamma Devatha Temple, Old Town, Ananthapur, rep. by its Chair Person. 4 A.Narasimhulu S/o. A.Narasappa D.No. 26/92, Old Town, Ananthapur Mandal & District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENUGOPALA RAO Counsel for Respondent No.3:MR. V.T.M.PRASAD Counsel for Respondent No.4: MR. M.VIDYASAGAR The Court made the following : ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. There is a longstanding dispute regarding right to perform Archakatvam in Sri Nallalamma Devatha Devasthanam, Old Town, Anantapur, between the family of the petitioner and that of respondent No.4. The father of respondent No.4 filed O.A.No.1 of 1973. While the result of the said O.A. is not known, respondent No.4 filed a fresh O.A. under Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kurnool and the same is pending. However, the petitioner had been rendering Archakatvam allegedly by force. He filed the present writ petition questioning order, dated 25.09.2008 passed by the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the temple whereby he was placed under suspension pending enquiry into the serious allegations made against him in the resolution passed by the Trust Board. A perusal of the said resolution, a copy of which is filed by respondent No.4 along with vacate stay petition, reveals that the petitioner is facing very serious allegations of rendering Archakatvam by consuming liquor and has been misbehaving with the devotees. The said resolution further reveals that the conduct of the petitioner in consuming liquor on 31.12.2006, which happened to be Vaikunta Ekadasi Festival day, was recorded in the C.Ds and the same were perused by the members of the Trust Board before deciding to place the petitioner under suspension. The consequential order was accordingly, passed by the Chairman of the Trust Board keeping the petitioner under suspension. At the hearing, Sri V.Venugopala Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by referring to Section 37 of the Act, the respondents have passed the impugned order suspending the petitioner as a measure of punishment and, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the absence of an enquiry having been conducted. Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that the resolution based on which the impugned order of suspension has been passed clearly shows that pending enquiry into the serious allegations against the petitioner, he was placed under suspension. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the petitioner was not appointed on regular basis and as serious allegations were made against him, the Trust Board thought it appropriate to hold a formal enquiry before passing a final order and that as the conduct of the petitioner does not befit his office of Archaka, there is no justification to continue him pending holding of enquiry into his conduct. In my considered view, mere quoting of Section 37 of the Act does not alter the nature of the order of suspension. From the perusal of the resolution referred to above, it is clear that the Trust Board has taken a serious view of the conduct of the petitioner and ordered for his immediate suspension before holding an enquiry. Therefore, the impugned order shall be considered as an order of suspension pending enquiry. Though arguments have been advanced on the status of the petitioner, I am not inclined to go into the same in the present proceedings. Inasmuch as respondent No.3 has got ample powers to place the petitioner under suspension, which fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the order of suspension on the serious allegations made against the petitioner cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unsustainable, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition to interdict the order of interim suspension. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. Respondent No.3 is directed to hold an enquiry against the petitioner and pass appropriate order after completion of the same, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th APRIL, 2009. kvni