THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.28036 OF 2008 DATED JUNE, 2011 BETWEEN Sri Ram Hanuman Mutt, Represented by its Mahant Rambharose Das S/o Late Mahant Moti Das, Age about 53 years, Occ: Mahant, R/o Sri Ram Hanuman Mutt, Goodsheds Roas, Near Nampally, Hyderabad. …Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Secretary (endowments), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.28036 OF 2008 ORDER: Earlier rounds of litigation notwithstanding, the core issue as to whether the subject institution, Sri Hanuman Temple, Nampally, Hyderabad, is a ‘temple’ or a ‘math’ is yet to be settled. The Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-III, Hyderabad, by his order dated 19.03.2008 in Revision Petition No.1056/2004 filed by the seventh respondent herein, held that the institution was a temple and set aside the proceedings dated 12.05.1995 of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, recognizing the petitioner herein as the ‘mahant’ of the institution. The said order was confirmed under Memo dated 30.10.2008 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh while dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that as long back as on 08.10.1960, the Assistant Secretary, B/R, Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, issued a Memo sanctioning the mahantship of the subject institution in his name and that the later proceedings dated 12.05.1995 of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, recognizing him in the said status was only an affirmation of the earlier sanction. The seventh respondent filed Revision Petition No.1056/2004 against the proceedings dated 12.05.1995 and succeeded in upsetting the same. This found confirmation before the revisionary authority, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, under the impugned Memo. It is pertinent to note that this Court, by common order dated 03.10.2007 in Writ Petition Nos.22938 of 2004 and 9701 of 2005 arising between these very same parties, took note of the fact that the seventh respondent’s revision petition was pending before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, and directed the said authority to dispose of the same within a stipulated time frame. Further, it may also be noticed that the subject institution was notified as a religious institution under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1987’) in the A.P. Gazette published on 21.09.1989. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a revision before the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 93 of the Act of 1987 on 19.04.2008 and the same is pending consideration. It is also relevant to note that the Memo dated 08.10.1960 issued by the Endowments Department pertained not only to Sri Hanuman Temple, Nampally, the subject institution, but also to Narsing Mandir, Begum Bazar. In so far as Narsing Mandir, Begum Bazar, is concerned, there is no dispute that the same was deleted from the list of institutions under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act of 1987 and was declared as a math under Section 6(d) thereof. The issue for resolution presently is whether Sri Hanuman Temple, Nampally, should be classified as a ‘religious institution’ falling under Section 6(c)(ii) or as a ‘math’ under Section 6(d) of the Act of 1987. This Court, in its earlier order dated 03.10.2007 in Writ Petition Nos.22938 of 2004 and 9701 of 2005, in fact, identified this as the crucial issue but left it to the revisionary authority to decide the same. In pursuance thereof, the revisionary authority passed the order dated 09.03.2008 holding that the subject institution was a temple. However, the same did not attain finality and was called in question by the petitioner before the Government in his revision filed under Section 93 of the Act of 1987. Pertinent to note, by the time the Government of Andhra Pradesh passed orders in the said revision under the impugned Memo dated 30.10.2008, the revision filed on 19.04.2008 by the petitioner against the notification of the subject institution under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act of 1987 was already pending before it. It would therefore have been proper and apposite for the Government to club both the revisions and pass comprehensive orders adjudicating the issue. The passing of orders in one revision to the exclusion of the other inevitably rendered the second superfluous. The Government practically foreclosed the issue pending before it in the other revision by its order in this revision. Needless to state, whether the subject institution is a ‘math’ or a ‘temple’ would have to be determined by the authorities with reference to the wider definition of a ‘religious institution’ under Section 2(23) and the definition of a ‘math’ under Section 2(17) of the Act of 1987. The mere incidence of religious worship would not, by itself, be conclusive or determinative of the status of the institution. All the other aspects which find mention in the statute would necessarily have to be kept in mind while deciding this issue. This crucial aspect must therefore be borne in mind by the authorities while resolving the dispute as to the status of the subject institution. As the revision filed by the petitioner against the notification of the subject institution under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act of 1987 is still pending consideration, this Court is of the opinion that the independent and separate disposal of the revision, which is the subject matter of this writ petition, was not proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Memo dated 30.10.2008 is accordingly set aside without going into the merits of the case and the matter is remitted to the Government of Andhra Pradesh for joint adjudication and disposal along with the revision filed by the petitioner against the notification of the subject institution under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act of 1987 in the A.P. Gazette on 21.09.1989. As the issue has been kept unresolved for sufficiently long, it is in the interest of the parties as well as the institution that it be resolved expeditiously. The Government of Andhra Pradesh is therefore directed to give priority to these revisions and dispose of the same in accordance with law within four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. _________ JUNE, 2011. VGSR