THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NOs.13500 and 15356 OF 2007 COMMON ORDER: Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed The controversy that falls for consideration in these two writ petitions is with regard to the Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Warangal, dated 30-06-2007, purported to have been passed under sub- section (4) of Section 87 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, proposing the 3rd respondent to be designated as the custodian of the temple, ordering him to take over the administration of the subject temple and to open a Bank Account in the name of the temple and also deposit the offerings / proceeds into the said account and to spend the same only after obtaining permission from the 2nd respondent; and also directing the petitioners to submit registration proposals of the subject temple under Section 43 of the Act No. 30 of 1987. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments. The learned counsel for the Petitioners would contend that the authority has acted beyond its power and exceeded its limits in directing the petitioners to submit proposals for registering the subject temple, when the very issue is still pending adjudication. Admittedly, the issue, whether the temple should be registered, is pending adjudication. Further, Section 87(1) of the Act prohibits passing of any such interim orders when the enquiry is pending further adjudication. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments has also fairly conceded to this legal position. The Supreme Court in THE DURGAH COMMITTEE, AJMER AND ANOTHER v. SYED HUSSAIN ALI AND OTHERS[1] and in SHRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE PURI MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, REP THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR AND ANOTHER v. CHINTAMANI KHUNTIA AND OTHERS[2], examined the constitutional validity of the Act and drawn a distinction between the secular functions and religious functions. As far as religious functions are concerned, they are protected and guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution of India. It was further held that Management of a temple or maintenance of discipline and order inside the temple, its administration and accounting for the offerings, are all within the domain of the secular functions. If the circumstances so demand or warrant, to meet the exigencies, the authority can pass an interim order, pending further adjudication into a dispute, but the effect of passing of the interim order should not, by itself, exceed the jurisdiction of the authority concerned and infringe the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution of India. It should not also reflect any final conclusion on any facet of the lis, which is pending further adjudication. In such an even, in our opinion, the action of the respondents would amount to nothing but prejudging the issue. Hence, we feel that the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Warangal, has exceeded his jurisdictional limits in directing the petitioners to send proposals for registering the subject temple under Section 43 of the Act. Such a decision can only emerge after the inquiry was complete. As far as the first limb of the order of the respondent, i.e., appointing a custodian to the subject temple and directing him to take over the administration of the temple and to open a Bank Account in the name of the temple and deposit the proceeds / offerings into the said account and also to spend the amount by taking prior permission from the 2nd respondent and act as per Rules, is concerned, we do not find any illegality, but whereas the second limb of the order directing the petitioners to submit registration proposals of the subject temple under Section 43 of the Act 30 of 1987, is illegal and arbitrary. Although the State cannot interfere with the freedom of a person to profess, practise and propagate his religion, the State, however, can control the secular matters connected with religion. All the activities in or connected with a temple are not religious activities. The management of a temple or maintenance of discipline and order inside the temple can be controlled by the State. The management of the temple and carrying on non-religious aspects of the administration are all secular acts. In view of these principles laid down in the aforesaid cases and having regard to the facts of this case, both the writ petitions are, therefore, partly allowed. The second limb of the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Warangal, dated 13-06- 2007, directing the petitioners to send the registration proposals of the subject temple, under Section 43 of the Act 30 of 1987, is set aside. The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Warangal, is directed to provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a speaking order dealing with the objection raised, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------- Ghulam Mohammed, J --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J 27th October 2009 mrk [1] AIR 1961 SC 1402 [2] (1997) 8 SSC 422