* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.27609 OF 2009 % 30.12.2009 Between: P.Anantha Rama Sarma, S/o.Late P.K.R. Sarma … Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad And others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: M/s.Raghavan K.Thalapaka Counsel for the Respondents: The Government Pleader for GAD < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: 1. 1997 (2) ALD 59 (DB) 2. 2001 (6) ALT 433 (FB) 3. (2003) 7 SCC 546 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.27609 OF 2009 .12.2009 Between: P.Anantha Rama Sarma, S/o.Late P.K.R. Sarma … Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.27609 OF 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) This writ petition is filed by Sri P.Anantha Rama Sarma, a resident of Hyderabad, by way of public interest litigation (PIL). The subject of writ petition is the decision of the third respondent takes up the project of ‘Ananda Nilayam Anantha Swarnamayam’ (ANAS) which is to provide gold plating to the main sanctum sanctorum (called Ananda Nilayam) of the presiding deity of Tirumala in Chittoor District. The relief sought is to prohibit respondents 3 and 5 from proceeding with the project. The grievance of the petitioner is that gold plating of Tirumala temple would necessarily require stringent security measures and thereby causing inconvenience and hardship to the visiting pilgrims. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that if Ananda Nilayam is covered with gold, it would violate the instructions issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh three decades ago and the inscriptions on the walls of the temple (epigraphs) would be unavailable to the people visiting the temple. Who is this petitioner and what is his locus standi to invoke PIL jurisdiction to assail resolution of the third respondent passed a year ago? Whether he availed other remedies for redressal of his grievances? And whether the grievance is valid? In this in limine order, we may briefly consider these aspects. We have heard Sri Tallapaka K.Raghavan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Placing reliance on the Division Bench Judgment in Tallapaka Koppu Raghavan v State of A.P.,[1], learned counsel submits that anything done by third respondent contrary to the public interest and devotees would violate the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (the Act, for brevity) and Rules made thereunder. He also highlighted the importance of epigraphs and inscriptions on the outer walls of sanctum sanctorum. According to him, if ANAS is allowed to proceed, it would result in losing all historical writings. Locus standi The petitioner is a law book seller for over twenty-five years. He owns a book shop near High Court of Andhra Pradesh. He takes pride that he reached this stage starting the life as travelling law book seller. As he believes that he has blessings of Lord Venkateswara in abundance, he statedly visits temple at Tirumala once in a month. He used to buy books on the history of temple and also distributed them to others. For the last decade and a half, Darshan of Lord Venkateswara has become hazardous. Third respondent introduced ‘Laghu Darshan’ and ‘Maha Laghu Darshan’. He alleges that third respondent at the behest of fifth respondent proposed ANAS without applying mind and is bent upon to go ahead with the project. The Government of A.P., passed circular No.23/77 dated 27.08.1977 directing the Deputy Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners of Endowments Department to take necessary steps to protect and preserve beautiful sculptures and valuable inscriptions available in temples. In spite of the same, third respondent is taking up gold plating work. The petitioner also refers to survey and study of Devasthanam Epigraphics by Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam’s (TTD) Archeologist Sadhu Subrahmanya Sastry. After such study, TTD published six volumes containing the original inscriptions and their English translations. The petitioner also asserts that after TTD Board resolved to take up ANAS. Lot of controversial statements have been made and published in newspapers and if ANAS project of TTD under the influence of fifth respondent is taken up, no member of public will know the history or see inscriptions on the walls in their natural appearance. The subject of writ petition is certainly not a secular one. It is a religious matter. But, the petitioner’s right to religion guaranteed under Article 25 of Constitution of India is intact. He is not denied access to temple or ‘Laghu Darshan’ or ‘Maha Laghu Darshan’. If he is interested, history found inscribed on the outer walls of Ananda Nilayam, indisputably, already number of extensive surveys have been made and as many as eight volumes are brought out by TTD. It is not even his case that right guaranteed under Article 26 of Constitution of India to every religious denomination to establish and maintain temple or manage their affairs have been taken away. As noticed supra, his grievance is two fold; that more security would have to be provided which might result in more hazardous situation for the pilgrims including he and people like him would not be able to see the inscriptions and epigraphs on the walls of the temple though they are very much available in the printed form in eight volumes brought out by TTD. In the background of the case as seen above, can it be said that petitioner has locus standi to question the action. A full Bench of this Court to which one of us was a member (VVSR,J) in Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Employees’ Association v Aditya Pratap Bhanj Dev[2] considered the scope of PIL and in the light of Supreme Court decided cases summarized as many as ten principles. It is not necessary to refer to them. In Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v C.K.Rajan[3], Supreme Court summarized these principles which are as follows. (i) The Court in exercise of powers under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain a petition filed by any interested person in the welfare of the people who is in a disadvantaged position and, thus, not in a position to knock the doors of the Court. The Court is constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of such disadvantaged people so as to direct the State to fulfill its constitutional promises. (See S.P. Gupta v Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87, People's Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India ((1982) 2 SCC 494), Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 and Janata Dal v H.S.Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305). (ii) Issues of public importance, enforcement of fundamental rights of large number of public vis-a-vis the constitutional duties and functions of the State, if raised, the Court treat a letter or a telegram as a public interest litigation upon relaxing procedural laws as also the law relating to pleadings. (See Charles Sobraj v Superintendent, Central Jail, (1978) 4 SCC 104 and Hussainara Khatoon (I) v Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81). (iii) Whenever injustice is meted out to a large number of people, the Court will not hesitate in stepping in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the International Conventions on Human Rights provide for reasonable and fair trial. (iv) The common rule of locus standi is relaxed so as to enable the Court to look into the grievances complained on behalf of the poor, depraved, illiterate and the disabled who cannot vindicate the legal wrong or legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or legal right. (See Fertilizer Corporation Kamagar Union v Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 568, S.P.Gupta (supra), People's Union for Democratic Rights (supra), D.C.Wadhwa (Dr) v State of Bihar ((1987) 1 SCC 378 and BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd) v Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333) . (v) When the Court is prima facie satisfied about violation of any constitutional right of a group of people belonging to the disadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or the Government, from raising the question as to the maintainability of the petition. (See Bandhua Mukti Morcha (supra)). (vi) Although procedural laws apply on PIL cases but the question as to whether the principles of res judicata or principles analogous thereto would apply depend on the nature of the petition as also facts and circumstances of the case. (See Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v State of U.P. (1989 Supp (1) SCC 504, and Forward Construction Co. v Prabhat Mandal (Regd) (1986) 1 SCC 100). (vii) The dispute between two warring groups purely in the realm of private law would not be allowed to be agitated as a public interest litigation. (See Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v Union of India 1989 Supp (1) SCC 251. (viii) However, in an appropriate case, although the petitioner might have moved a Court in his private interest and for redressal of the personal grievances, the Court in furtherance of the public interest may treat it necessary to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice. (See Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v Dr.Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (19787) 1 SCC 227. (ix) The Court in special situations may appoint Commission, or other bodies for the purpose of investigating into the allegations and finding out facts. It may also direct management of a public institution taken over by such committee. (See Bandhua Mukti Morcha (supra), Rakesh Chandra Narayan v State of Bihar (1989 Supp (1) SCC 644 and A.P. Pollution Control Board v M.V.Nayudu ((1999) 2 SCC 718). (x) The Court would ordinarily not step out of the known areas of judicial review. The High Courts although may pass an order for doing complete justice to the parties, it does not have a power akin to Article 142 of the Constitution of India. (xi) Ordinarily the High Court should not entertain a writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation questioning constitutionality or validity of a Statute or a Statutory Rule. Therefore, unless and until there is gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or it is a class action against invasion of human rights when those aggrieved persons are not in a position to approach the Court themselves, PIL jurisdiction is invoked. All policy decisions are not justiceable in a writ Court unless there are demonstrable mala fides attributable to public authorities. There is no denial that the administration and management of TTD is entrusted to statutorily constituted Board of Trustees, who have the powers to take such policy decisions having regard to the public interest, services, safety measures and amenities to be provided for the pilgrims. Secondly, when TTD passed a resolution a year ago, the writ petition is filed now making very vague allegations against fifth respondent, who is the chairman of TTD Board of Trustees. We have a strange feeling that there is something which does not meet the eye. Except making vague allegations against fifth respondent that he is influencing the Board and he is the person behind ANAS, no specific instances of alleged illegality and impropriety are pointed out. We are therefore convinced that the petitioner has no locus standi to file writ petition. The decision relied on by the counsel, in T.Koppu Raghavan (supra) is a case where an attempt of a movie company to make a feature film on the life of saint poet Annamayya on Tirumala Hills was subject matter and this Court issued a Mandamus prohibiting TTD from permitting shooting of the film or any other films on Tirumala Hills. The said judgment or observations made therein have no relevance either to the locus standi or grievance of the petitioner nor the decision supports the counsel’s submission. Alternative remedies TTD Board constituted under Section 96 of the Act shall exercise powers under Section 97 and those contemplated under the powers & functions of TTD Board Rules, 1990 (promulgated vide G.O.Ms.No.311, dated 09.04.1990). All the decisions of the TTD Board by way of resolution can be subject matter of revision or review before Government of A.P., under Sections 121 and 122 of the Act respectively. The petitioner has not availed these remedies nor the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court any of those interested in the temple availing these remedies. The resolution No.456, dated 20.09.1998 was unanimously passed by the Board to take up ANAS project in Sri Tirumala temple in two phases. The petitioner who kept quite all these days chose to file the writ petition probably for the reason that the work is in progress. The submission that TTD Board ignored the Government Circular dated 27.08.1997 is also misconceived. Even according to petitioner’s counsel, TTD is governed by the provisions of Chapter XIV and therefore, the circular issued in relation to other temples may not have any applicability to TTD. Such issues as gold plating the sanctum sanctorium, construction of temples, protection of ancient monuments etc., are ordinarily not amenable to strict scrutiny of this Court and must receive deferential scrutiny. We leave the matter there. We may also point out that in the absence of any allegation of violation of fundamental right, statutory or common law right, even if the petitioner is a devotee of Lord Venkateswara as long as his religious right is not affected, he cannot seek judicial review of a decision taken by the Board of Trustees of TTD unanimously to take up ANAS project. If TTD has to provide more security after completion of ANAS, it is only sequential action and would be well in tune with the present day risk which all religious institutions in India face due to militancy. These are the matters which must not weigh with the Court of judicial review in dealing with a policy decision of a religious body. Lord Venkateswara is richest God in the Universe and millions of people reposing great faith visit the temple and if extra security is provided either before or after ANAS, such steps must be welcome. As there is constant and continuous flow of pilgrims to Tirumala, the TTD Board may have taken such steps like providing ‘Laghu Darshan’ and ‘Maha Laghu Darshan’ so that more number of persons will have Darshan of the Presiding Deity within available time. Those steps cannot be faulted. In Bhakti cult there are instances where devotees take upon themselves unimaginable hardship like moving on knees, moving in a prostate position and walking on thorns and nails to visit presiding Deity of temple of their choice. A devotee like the petitioner, therefore, cannot complain if he is permitted ‘Laghu Darshan’ or ‘Maha Laghu Darshan’ depending on rush of the people to have Darshan at the temple of Lord Venkateswara. The issue raised in this writ petition, in our considered opinion, is not justiceable. Such issues lack adjudicative disposition because there are always two views. Which is the best view is left to members of TTD Board who are themselves presumed to be great devotees of Lord Venkateswara. Their decisions must receive respect of the Court. In the result, for the above brief reasons, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. There shall no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ____________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) .12.2009 NOTE: L.R. copy be marked. (By order) pln [1] 1997 (2) ALD 59 (DB) [2] 2001 (6) ALT 433 (FB) [3] (2003) 7 SCC 546