IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13972 of 1996 Between: 1 Thamarapu Tiruvengadachary (died) S/o. Thamarapu Sundarachary R/o. Tirupathi Chittoor Dt. 2 Thamarapu Murali @ Seshachary (Son) S/o. Thamarapu Sundarachary R/o. Tiruchanur (The 2nd petitioner brought on record as LR of deceased 1st petitioner as per C.O. dt: 15/9/98 in WPMP 30677/98) ..... PETITIONER AND The Executive Officer Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Tirupathi Chittoor Dist. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent: MR M.ADINARAYANA RAJU The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to direct the Executive Oﬃcer of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (TTD), Tirupathi not to interfere with the custom and usage of the descendants of Sri Thamarapu Madabushi Tatachari rendering services such as preparing prasadams and maintaining Sree Vedantha Desikar Temple (for short “the temple”), Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District. The petitioner claims to be the descendant of Thamarapu Madabushi Tatachari, who is said to have built the temple in Tirupathi in the year 1569. According to the petitioner, Thamarapu Madabushi Tatachari employed archakas of Sri Govinda Raja Swamy temple to perform archakatvam in the temple, while the founder himself rendered services like making prasadams and maintaining temple, and that the said traditions continued till now. He also averred that presently there are three families, who are the descendants of late Thamarapu Madabushi Tatachari, and that they have been rendering the services of preparing prasadams and maintaining the temple. The petitioner claims to be belonging to one such family. He is aggrieved by the action of the TTD in interfering with the services rendered by him and his family purportedly on the ground of abolition of hereditary system and Mirasidars. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Executive Oﬃcer of the TTD, he, inter alia, admitted that the temple had three families as Mirasidars, which include the family of Sri Thamarapuvari Narasimhan and others. He also stated that according to the tradition, the archaka of Sri Govinda Raja Swamy temple does archakatvam services and the families of the Mirasidars were only in-charge of the temple to keep the same clean and also for preparation of prasadams and other limited works connected with it through a paricharika and that the archaka of the main temple i.e., Sri Govinda Raja Swamy temple renders aradhana, nivedya and kainkaryam, while one paricharika of the above mentioned family renders the paricharika services in the temple. He denied the claim of the petitioner that the temple is maintained by Mirasidar families. It is further stated that in view of abolition of hereditary system, the petitioner cannot be permitted to act as ‘vantudar’ as requested by him. At the hearing, Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in spite of abolition of Mirasidars, Section 142 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”) saves any honour to which any person is entitled by custom, the performance of or interference with the religious worship, ceremonies and poojas in religious institutions according to the sampradayams and Agamas followed in such institutions. He, therefore, submitted that notwithstanding the provisions of Section 34 of the Act, under which hereditary rights in Mirasidars have been abolished, the petitioner and his family members are entitled to render the services, which they had been doing as Mirasidars by way of custom for centuries. The question, whether preparation of prasadams and upkeep of the temple falls within the provisions of Section 142(a) of the Act or not is required to be adjudicated in order to grant relief to the petitioner. Under Section 87 of the Act, which is substituted by Act 33 of 2007 with eﬀect from 03-01- 2008, the Endowments Tribunal shall have the power to decide any dispute which, inter alia, relates to whether any person is entitled by custom or otherwise to any honour, emoluments or perquisites in any charitable or religious institution or endowment and what the established usage of such institution or endowment is in regard to any other matter. In order to decide the question as pointed out above, it is necessary for the parties to adduce relevant evidence before the Tribunal. As the statute provides for an eﬀective remedy to the petitioner, I am of the view that it would be appropriate if the petitioner is permitted to avail such a remedy. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of permitting the petitioner to avail the above mentioned remedy before the Endowments Tribunal. At the hearing, neither of the counsel appearing for the parties is sure as to whether the Endowments Tribunal, as envisaged under Section 87 of the Act 33 of 2007, has been constituted or not. This writ petition is pending since 1996 and an interim order was granted on 16-07-1996, which is subsisting till today. Therefore, I direct that the said interim order shall continue for a period of three (3) months or till the expiry of one (1) month from the date of constitution of the Endowments Tribunal, if not already constituted, whichever is latter. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 4th September, 2008 vrn