THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.24798 of 1999 Date: 22-10-2007 Between: Nayi Brahmana Seva Sangham. … Petitioner And The Commissioner of Endowments and others. … Respondents ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay a fixed remuneration for the services rendered by the members of the petitioner’s Society and to declare the action of the respondents in trying to auction the right to collect the hair obtained by tonsure of the heads of devotees as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act with Registration No.1904SE/83 with an object to promote the welfare of the “Nayi Brahmins” of the village, consisting about 180 members. Since more than 300 years, about 40 members of the Society, have been rendering services of playing traditional “Sannaimelam” and tonsuring the heads of the devotees in the Sri Maddileti Narasimha Swamy Temple and for such services they are not collecting any amount either from the temple authorities or from the devotees, though the temple authorities are collecting Rs.2 per head, except obtaining the tonsured hair of the devotees. The said families are depending on the remuneration of selling of hair obtained by tonsuring the heads of the devotees. This practice had been in existence from the period immemorial and has been continuing by the present families of the Society, like a tradition. As the things stood thus, the 3rd respondent, Executive Officer of the said Temple, issued auction notification of the right to collect the hair obtained by tonsuring the heads of the devotees and to sell the same. The members of the Society approached the 3rd respondent and requested him to stop the auction, as it would affect their livelihood and also requested him to see that the members are paid some remuneration for the services rendered by them, as the proposed auction would deprive them of the remuneration. However, the 3rd respondent refused to consider the request of the members stating that he is helpless and the members could continue the rendering of services without expecting any remuneration or stop the services altogether. Therefore, they approached the 1st respondent, Commissioner of Endowments, and made a representation dated 23-11-1999 and apprised the said facts with a request to provide alternative remuneration for the services rendered by them and to stop the auction. The 1st respondent while agreeing that the remuneration has to be paid, stated that the auction would not be stopped and that the concerned members have to render services without any remuneration or stop the services. The action of the respondents in refusing to pay remuneration for the services rendered by the members of the Society and depriving the right to collect the hair, in lieu of remuneration, is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. The action of the respondents in auctioning the right to collect the hair is not only depriving the livelihood of the members but amounts to terminating their services without any notice or enquiry. Hence, the present petition. This Court on 01-12-1999 permitted to hold the auction and stayed the finalisation of the auction proceedings till further orders of the Court. Thereafter, on 16-12-1999, stay was vacated observing that the respondents have received the highest bid amount of Rs.5,10,000/- for one year from the date of permission and according to the rules, the highest bidder paid half of the amount of Rs.2,60,000/-. The entire auction process was over and in the meanwhile, the order passed by this Court is stated to have been communicated to the respondents at about 1.50 p.m., when the whole proceedings were completed. Further it is also to be observed that whether the petitioners are entitled to any remuneration for the work, which they are stated to be rendering in the Temple, is entirely a different matter altogether. But, on that ground, the proposed auction cannot stall. It has nothing to do with the question as to the entitlement of the petitioners to get any remuneration for their services, and that has to be considered in the writ petition. For the said reasons, the interim order was vacated. It is also held that the petitioner’s Society made a representation to the 2nd respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kurnool, requesting him to consider their case for payment of some remuneration and the same is stated to be under consideration of the 2nd respondent. Eventually the 2nd respondent was directed to consider the said representation and take an appropriate decision in the matter, in accordance with law, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and as the 2nd respondent was already directed to consider the representation made by the petitioner’s Society, within the stipulated time in the order dated 16-12-1999, I am of the considered opinion that no further orders are required to be passed in this petition and it is expedient to dispose of the same in terms of the order dated 16-12-1999. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 16-12-1999. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 22-10-2007 LSK