Ch. Chinnapa Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

3. Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamyvari Special Grade Deputy Collector Kurnool District Devasthanam, Rep. by and Executive Officer, Sri Srisailam, ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the High Court may more particularly one in the the crcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction nature Writ Mandamus declaring Circular No. 24 Rc.No.DPI/52200/2009, dt. 10-11-2010 Dharmika Parishad, Endowments Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh of the 2nd respondent and consequential Proceedings in Rc.No. G2/420/2011 dt. 23-04-2012 of the 3rd respondent are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to perform the Saswatha Nitya Kalyanam. LA. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 9330 OF 20141 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioner to perform the Nitya Kalyanam every year on the opted day pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. CHAKRAVARTHY P V S K Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 &2: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No 3: SRI SRI G RAMANA RAO ENDOWMENTS SC FOR The Court made the following order: APHC010620522014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] TUESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7516/2014 Between: Ch. Chinnapa Reddy, AND ...PETITIONER Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. CHAKRAVARTHYP V S K Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief; Writ a writ, the nature direction more particularly one in of Mandamus declaring the Circular No.24, Rc.No.DPI/52200/2009, dt.10- 11-2010, Dharmika Parishad, Endowments Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh of the 2”" respondent and consequential Proceedings in Rc.No.G2/420/2011, dt.23-04- 2012 of the respondent are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to permit the to perform the Saswatha Nitya Kalyanam petitioner " 2

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is devotee of Lord Siva and frequently visit Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamyvari Devasthanam, Srisailam-3''^ respondent. The 3'^^ respondent floated a scheme by name “Nitya Kalyana Scheme”. The object of the scheme is to allow the members of the above scheme to perform Swamyvari Kalyanam on their opted dates. The petitioner joined as permanent devotee servant in the above scheme by paying an amount of Rs.3,500/- on 18.02.1999 and opted 13'^ of August every year for rendering services and performing Swamyvari Kalyanam. While things stood thus, the 3^^ respondent informed the pettioner through a letter vide Rc.No.G2/420/2011, dated 23.04.2012, that the 2"'^ respondent issued Circular No.24, Rc.No.DPI/52200/2009,

10.11.2010, Dharmika Parishad, Endowments Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, through which the above said scheme has been terminated and it has been extended for three more years as grace period for the devotees who rendered services for ten (10) years by 2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner sought information through RTA and came to know that, through a circular No.24 in Rc.No.DPI/52200/2009, dated

10.11.2010, Saswatha Pooja Scheme has been restricted and the circular discloses that it was restricted for ten (10) years only. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Heard Mr.P.V.S.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for, Endowments, 3 appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as Mr.G.Ramana Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, when the petitioner was joined in Nitya Kalyana Scheme, the 3^^^ respondent did not stipulated any conditions and did not mentioned any terms and conditions, in case of termination of the scheme. There is no mention with regard to refund of the amount paid by the devotees in case of termination. He further submits that the petitioner is a pious man and satiating divine and pious feelings by continuously participating in the rituals of the 3'’'^ respondent-temple. The impugned orders of the 2'’^ respondent has deprived the right of the petitioner in doing rituals. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

5. Per Contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the 2^^ respondent has passed the Circular No.24 in Rc.No.DPI/52200/2009, dated 10.11.2010, after the 3'^ meeting of Andhra Pradesh Dharmika Parishad, restricting the life span of Saswatha Pooja Scheme. He further submits that the existing Saswatha Sevadhars are allowed to continue for further period of three (3) years treating this as notice period. He further submits that the 3'’'^ respondent passed orders vide Rc.No.G2/420/2011 dated 23.04.2012 stating that. Dharmika Parishad, Hyderabad has limited the Seswatha Seva upto ten (10) years to facilitate the umpteen number of devotees and ticket holders of the services of the God, who visit all temples and render services to Gods and Goddess. The services provided to the ticket holders who completed 10 years by 2010 have been extended for further three years i.e,., upto 2013 to perform Saswatha Pooja, marriage, ubhayam. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel requests this Court to record the same and close the writ petition.

7. Perused the record. On a perusal of the order passed by the 2^^^ respondent vide Circular No.24 in Rc.No.DPI/52200/2019, dated 10.11.2010, the following grounds discussed for restricting the term of Saswatha Pooja schemes: b) a) That the amount deposited towards Saswatha Pooja by the devotees insignificant amount today. The long ago happens to expenditure incurred on pooja and dispatch of prasadams is very high. The number of persons performing Saswatha Sevas is increasing gradually and the temple is unable to dispatch prasadams in time nor the temple is able to intimate all Saswatha Sevadars well in advance. As per temple norms Sasw atha Sevadars are entitled to a privilege seat in the functions during important festivals. Year after year the same Saswatha Sevadars and Arjita Sevadars are occupying front rows during the festivals. Hence this opportunity is denied to others. c)

8. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon perusing the entire material on record, as the respondents have not filed any counter till today and as there is no interim direction in favour of the petitioner. this Court is of the view that, the respondents are performing Nitya Kalyanam I 5 since 2013 as per the Circular No.24 in Rc.No.DPI/52200/2019, dated

10.11.2010 and the same is going on. The 2'^^ respondent after discussing at length, decided to restrict the Saswatha Pooja scheme for ten (10) years in all the temples and the existing Saswatha Sevadars are allowed to continue for further three years treating as grace period, as the number of persons performing Saswatha Sevas in increasing and temple is unable to dispatch prasadams in time. Considering the aspects stated above, the respondent authorities have changed the term of Saswatha Pooja Scheme. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter by giving opportunity to those who were denied the same services by the respondents concerned.

9. By recording the same, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

10. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. To //TRUE COPY// SD/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR f SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to Sri. Chakravarthy P V S K Advocate [OPUC]

2. One CC to Sri. G Ramana Rao SC for Endowments [OPUC]

3. Two CCs to GP for Endowments ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

4. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:12/11/2024 ORDER WP.No.7516 of 2014 CLOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS o g ?5' 11f MAY 2025 m Co