IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3265 of 2003 Between: Madireddi Vimalabai W/o.late Veerabhadra Rao Sri Syamalamba Ammavari Temple, Rajahmundry, E.G.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments), IV Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Endowments, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments, Multi Zone, Kakinada. 4 The Asst. Commissioner of Endowments, Rajahmundry. 5 N.V.Ramana, Incharge Executive Officer, Sri Shyamalamba Ammavari Temple, Mangalavarapu Peta, Rajahmundry, E.G.District. 6 Veeravalli Praveen Kumar, S/o.Veera Raju R/o.Rajahmundry, E.G.District. ( R6 is impleaded as per Court Order in WPMP 7554/03 dt. 29.04.2003) 7 Dangeti Veerababu S/o. Adinarayana Near Sri Shyamalamba Ammavari Temple, Rajahmundry, E.G. Dist. ( R7 is impleaded as per court order dt. 21-2-2005 in WPMP 2073 of 2005) .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.SURESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.5: MISS N. USHA KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent No.6: MR.M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.7: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3265 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 31.01.2003 passed by respondent No.1 whereby it set aside order dated 23.03.2001 passed by respondent No.3 in Revision Petition filed by the petitioner. 2. This case has a long drawn history. The petitioner’s husband Late Veerabhadra Reddy, during his lifetime approached the Deputy Commissioner concerned under Section 57 (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1966 (for short ‘1966 Act’) for declaration that he was Hereditary Trustee and Archaka of Sri Syamalamba Ammavari Temple (for short ‘the Temple”). That application was dismissed. He ﬁled appeal before the Commissioner, Endowments. During the pendency of the appeal, he died. The petitioner substituted herself in her husband’s place as appellant. By order, dated 31.12.1965, the appeal was allowed and the petitioner was declared as Hereditary Trustee and Archaka. On 04.07.1988, respondent No.4 appointed the then Executive Oﬃcer of Sri Uma Markandeya Swamy Temple as Executive Oﬃcer of the Temple. The petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.15401 of 1989 questioning the said appointment. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court, on 15.07.1997, and respondent No.4 was directed to give notice to the petitioner and consider the explanation, if any, ﬁled by her, before passing appropriate order. In pursuance of the said order, respondent No.4 issued show cause notice dated 16.12.1997 inviting objections from the petitioner against the proposed appointment of Executive Oﬃcer. By order dated 09.02.1998, respondent No.4 found that there is a necessity of appointment of Executive Oﬃcer to look after the aﬀairs of the Temple and proper maintenance of accounts and that the Executive Oﬃcer earlier appointed is continuing as per the order of Status quo granted by this Court earlier. The petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.9342 of 1998 questioning the said order. This Court dismissed the said writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal. The petitioner ﬁled Writ Appeal No.805 of 1998 and the same was dismissed on 06.04.1998 with certain directions regarding the management of the Temple. 3. The petitioner ﬁled Revision Petition, which was registered as R.P.No.63 of 1998, questioning order dated 09.02.1998 passed by respondent No.4 before respondent No.3. By order dated 23.06.2001, the said Revision Petition was allowed. Respondent No.5 carried the matter in revision before respondent No.1. The said Revision Petition was allowed by respondent No.1, by order dated 31.01.2003, which is impugned in this writ petition. 4. At the hearing, Sri M.V.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced two contentions, namely; (1) that the ﬁnding of respondent No.1, that declaration made in favour of the petitioner under 1966 Act got extinguished and that the petitioner has no right to claim to be in the management of the Temple, cannot be sustained. He relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in C.Ratnaswamy Mudaliar (since died) now rep. by his son and successor-in-interest, R.Sundararaju, vs. The Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Endowments Dept., Hyderabad and others[1], and (2) that the stand of respondent No.4 that the income of the Temple exceeded Rs.50,000/- was incorrect and, therefore, appointment of Executive Oﬃcer to the Temple is not permissible under the provisions of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘1987 Act’). 5. The learned Government Pleader opposed the said contentions and submitted that with the abolition of the Hereditary Rights under 1987 Act, the petitioner has a limited right for being appointed as one of the Trustees of a Non- Hereditary Trust Board to be constituted for the Temple and that she has no right to question appointment of Executive Oﬃcer. He further submitted that under Section 29 of 1987 Act, an Executive Oﬃcer is required to be appointed to every Institution, whose annual income exceeds Rs.50,000/-, and in the instant case, as the income of the Temple is in excess of Rs.50,000/- per annum, the order appointing Executive Oﬃcer does not suffer from any illegality. 6. With regard to the ﬁrst contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the requirement of a lengthy debate is obviated in view of the recent Amendment of Section 17 by Act No.33 of 2007 with eﬀect from 03.01.2008, whereby Explanation I is added to Section 17 of 1987 Act, which reads as under:- “ ‘Founder’ means, - (a) in respect of Institution or Endowments existing at the commencement of this Act, the person who was recognized as Hereditary Trustee under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 or a Member of his family recognized by the Competent Authority; (b) In respect of an Institution or Endowment established after such commencement, the person who has founded such Institution or Endowment or a member of his family and recognized as such by the competent authority.” 7. Evidently, being conscious of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court referred to above in C.Ratnaswamy Mudaliar, the above quoted amendment is brought out. Therefore, for the purpose of asserting the petitioner’s limited rights after the abolition of Hereditary Trustees System under Section 16 of 1987 Act, the declaration given under 1966 Act in favour of the petitioner continues to be valid. 8. Regarding the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the income of the Temple was below Rs.50,000/-, appointment of Executive Oﬃcer was illegal, a perusal of the show cause notice, dated 16.12.1997, issued by respondent No.4 shows that he mentioned therein the assessable Income of the Temple during the last ﬁve years as under:- 1. 1993-94 Rs.83,568-00 2. 1994-95 Rs.60,450-00 3. 1995-96 Rs.98,803-00 4. 1996-97 Rs.1,27,061-00 5. 1997-98 Rs.84,491-00 He also mentioned that as the income exceeded Rs.50,000/-, the Temple was re-classiﬁed as Section 6(b) (ii) Institution from Section 6(c) (ii) Institution under 1987 Act. In her belated explanation submitted by the petitioner, she, no doubt, questioned the correctness of the said claim. In his order dated 09.02.1998, respondent No.4 categorically stated that after following the procedure laid down under the provisions of Act 30 of 1987, the Temple was re-classiﬁed from Section 6(c) (ii) to Section 6(b) (ii) of Act 30 of 1987, in proceedings of the Commissioner, Endowments, Hyderabad, dated 21.08.1996, and the same was published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 19.09.1996. 9. It is not in dispute that where the annual income of a Religious Institutions and Endowments, other than Mutts, exceeds Rs.50,000/- but does not exceed Rs.5,00,000/-, the same shall be registered under Section 6(ii) of Act 30 of 1987. If not earlier, the petitioner was aware of registration of the Temple under the above mentioned provision atleast with the passing of order by respondent No.4 on 06.12.1997. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to question re-classiﬁcation of the Temple. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner made strenuous eﬀorts to convince this Court that the petitioner had valid reason for not questioning the said order because the same was not served on her, I am not able to appreciate this stand of the petitioner, because under 1987 Act, there is no obligation on the respondents to serve a copy of order of re-classiﬁcation. Atleast when the said order was published in the Gazette, the petitioner ought to have questioned the same. Unless the petitioner questioned re-classiﬁcation of the Temple, it is not permissible for her to raise the contention that the income of the Temple is below Rs.50,000/-. The very fact that the Temple is registered under Section 6(b) (ii) of Act 30 of 1987 raises a legal presumption that the income of the Temple exceeds Rs.50,000/-. Such a presumption can be rebutted by the petitioner by placing the facts and figures relating to the income before the competent authority in a proceeding initiated by her to question the very re-classiﬁcation of the Temple. As the petitioner failed to do so, I am afraid she cannot question the authenticity of the ﬁgures furnished by respondent No.4 regarding the income to justify appointment of Executive Officer. 10. As regards the judgment in Sri Ramanama Sankirthana Sangham, Vijayawada and others v . Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary for Revenue (Endowments) and others[2], the case decided by this Court in the said judgment related to questioning of very re- classiﬁcation of the Institutions under G.O.Ms.No.433, dated 05.05.1993. In that context, the learned Judge observed that the power to appoint executive oﬃcers is normally exercised for the purpose of ensuring better and eﬃcient administration and management of the institution or endowment and that the wide powers of superintendence and control consecrated on the Commissioner of Endowments cannot be understood as an uncanalised power of an inﬁnite extent for absolute power. In my considered view, on the facts of the present case, I do not ﬁnd any jurisdictional or legal error in the order of respondent No.1 aﬃrming the order of appointing the Executive Oﬃcer. In fact, serious allegations of various commissions and omissions by the petitioner have been made by the respondents in their counter aﬃdavits. I do not propose to adjudicate on the correctness or otherwise of these allegations. It would only suﬃce to note that the Temple has the potential to earn reasonably good income, which according to respondent No.4 is exceeding Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. In the scheme of 1987 Act, which abolished the system of Hereditary Trusteeship and vested very limited rights/privileges on the members of founder family, I do not ﬁnd any illegality or unreasonableness in the action of the respondents in appointing an Executive Oﬃcer to the Temple in order to see that the funds of the Institutions are not misused by individuals, such as the petitioner. The purpose of appointing an Executive Oﬃcer is to arrest misuse of the public funds and the petitioner failed to point out any illegality in appointing such an Executive Oﬃcer or how the appointment prejudiced her limited rights conferred by 1987 Act. 11. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not ﬁnd any ground to interfere with the order passed by respondent No.1, and the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 23.10.2008 v v [1] 1992 (2) ALT 650 (D.B.) [2] 2006 (2) ALT 18