Association v. Association

The petitioners seeking a direction nature mandamus declaring that members of the 1®' petitioner-sangham alone have the exclusive right to render the service of tonsuring to the pilgrims visiting Tirumala and to recruit members to carry- on the service in accordance with” the terms of the decree granted by the District Munsif Court, Tirupati in OS.No.450 of 1992 and other directions that the respondent has no authority to appoint any members for the above purpose and also a direction to not regularize the services of any temporary staff.

The petitioner is the association representing its members who are tonsuring the heads of devotees Lord Venkateswara Swamy at the Kalyana Katta. The association is registered on 07.07.1924 under the name and style Sri Tirumala « Kalyana Katta Mirasidars Sangham. It is submitted that since the members of 1 petitioner’s Sangham were extending the services of tonsuring the heads of devotees. OS.No.450 of 1952 was filed by the 1®' petitioner when disputes between the 1®’ petitioner-sangham claimants. The suit was decreed on 22.02.1954. However, the 112,11 WP.No.21796 of 2012 respondent without considering the decree passed by the competent court in the suit filed by the 1®* petitioner, respondent was going ahead with engagement of staff for extending the tonsuring of heads service through its employees either employed directly or employed through outsourcing contract.

Mr.A.Sumant, learned standing counsel for the respondent appearing virtually online submits that the writ petition is not maintainable and submits that the hereditary of Mirasidars were abolished as per Section 34 of the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. It is also submitted by the learned standing counsel for the respondent that Section 160 of the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 reads as follows ; Sec.160. Overriding effect of the Act. (1) Not withstanding any compromise, agreement, scheme, judgment, decree or order of a Court, Tribunal or other authority or any custom or usage governing any charitable or religious institution or endowment of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, the provisions of this Act shall with effect on and from the date of the commencement of this Act, prevail insofar as they relate to the matters governed by the corresponding provisions in any such compromise, agreement, scheme, judgment, decree or order or any custom or usage and such corresponding provisions shall thereafter have no effect. (2) Notwithstanding anything in the agreements entered into by Devasthanams represented Tirumala Tirupathi //4// WP.No.21796of2012 Executive Officer and Archakam Mirasidars of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams on the 30th May, 1979 or any other agreements of the like nature, the provisions of this Act shall with effect on and from the date of commencement of this Act, prevail insofar as they relate to the matters governed by the corresponding provisions in any such agreements and such corresponding provisions in such agreements shall thereafter have no effect.

It is also submitted by the learned standing counsel that in pursuance of an agreement between the Dharmakartha and the respondent during the year 1975 almost all member of Sangham were absorbed into TTD and their services were also regularized with the respondent-Devasthanam.

On account of abolition of Mirasidars with the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious and Endowments Act coming into force with effect from 04.04.1987. The writ petition has outlived its purpose.

That apart, the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court as it is a settled law that Public Law remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot be invoked for execution of a decree passed by competent civil court in as much as an effective mechanism is provided under CPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghan Shyamdas Gupta and another Vs. Anant Kumar Sinha and othersT The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Public law remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of 11991 KHC 1030 II5II WP.No.21796 of 2012 -■a invoked for implementation of the orders of 3 india cannot be court. is abolished after introduction of the

When the Mirasidars system 1987 the grievance Act, of the petitioner before this 0 Court seeking a direction to cannot be adjudicated the respondents Munsif Court passed by the District implenient the decree Tirupati in in OS.No.450 of 1952.

With these observations the writ petition is dismissed without costs. As a sequel, pending closed miscellaneous petitigtis if any, shall stand //true copy// Sd/- N. NAGAMMA assistant REGISJRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 To

1. OneCCtoSmt. A CC to Sri A Sumanth (SC

2. One 3. Three CD Copies TF Chandravathi, Advocate [OPUCj for TTD) Advocate [OPUCj HIGH COURT DATED:03/02/2025 & ORDER WP.No.21796 of 2012 ANi 15 MAR 2025 Current SecUon DISMISSING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS