The High Court · 2025

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 suspend the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.A2l1 355512023, dated 1911212013 of the 2nd respondent, in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Coud may be pleased pleased to direct the Endowments department to release it from the purview of Endowments by handing over the same to the Pushpagiri Samstanam for the maintenance of the Temple, or else I will be put to great hardship and irreparable loss which cannot be compensated by any means, in the interest of justice. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Between:

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, Rangareddy District, Telangana State.

2. The Commissioner, Commissioner s Office, Endowments Department, Tilak Road, Hyderabad, Rangareddy District, Telangana State.

3. The Assistant Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner s Office, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, Rangareddy District, Telangana State.

4. The Executive Officer Gr.lll, O/o. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Telangana District at Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS/R1TO4 AND 1 z Sri Brahmarambika Mallikarjuna Temple Society, Shivapuri Colony, Malkajgiri Rep. by its Working President B.S. Murthy, S/o. Ramojoga Rao, Aged. 85 Years, F/o. D.No.23-20, RK Nagar, Matru Sri Vidyalaya High School, Malkajgiri-500047 Representing Sri Brahmaramba Sametha Mallikarjuna Panchayatina Temple, Shivapuri Colony, RK Nagar, Malkajgiri, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, Telangana State. R. Mallikarjun, S/o. Ramgiri Nagaraju, Aged. 32 Years, Fl/o. D.No.24-46l3, RK Nagar, Near Shivalayam Temple, Shivapuri Colony, Malkajgiri-500047 Hereditory Trustee of Sri Brahmaramba Sametha Mallikarjuna Panchayatina Temple, Shivapuri Colony, RK Nagar, Malkajgiri-Medchal District, Telangana State. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 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 vacate the interim order Dt: 12.0'l .2024 passed in l.A.No. 1 of 2024 in W.P. No. '1 159 of 2024, and also dismiss the Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M.V.RAJA RAAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: ORDER -:.t" THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.1159 OF 2o24 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Art 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:- u..,to lssue a ut'{t, order or dlrectloa more pdtttcularlg o^e lft the ndture oJ wrlt ol Mq.^d.a.mus calllng Jor the records pertdlnlng to the proceedlngs ln Rc.No.A2/73555/2O23, dated 79.12.2013 oJ the 2nd respond.ent and. therebg d.eclare and setaslde sdld lr pugned. proceedlngs as lllegal, arbltr@ry, tx.on appuc@tlo'l of ,7.tnd, co trqry to the Act 30 oJ 1947, unco stltutlonal a d lnte{ering the d.lJa.lrs o! the temple ulthout ang cause and mo.llce, hold. thqt the actlon of the Respondeflts ls ztter vlolqtlon ol fundame^tol righ,-s of the Petltlo e's undet Art.74,19,21& 26 ol the Constltl-ttlon oJ Indla, ln the l^tetest of lu.s'tlce dnd pq-ss slach other ord.er or ord.ers mag deem tlt and proper ln the clrcumsto'7l.ces oJ the cqse, pendlng dlsposal of the aboae uttlt petltlort dnd pdss such other order ot ord.ers,.." 2, Heard Mr.M.V.Raja Raam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Mangilal Naik, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Perused the record

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Executiae Offtcer, Toorangi Group Temples us Gopal Inanil, would submit that this Division Bench categorically held as follows: 4It ls ,tou well settled. l^ l^u that prl'1.clples oI nqturql Justlce qre requlred to be manddtorilg complted ulth ln all dctlo s t(I.ker. bg o.d',ri'1-lstro:tlo'a ot stqtutory duthorltles nless the requlreme\t cq,n be sald to be exclud.ed. elther bg express proulslon of the sta,tute ot bg necessary impllcatlon. In other uords, to all ptovlslons ol the std.tute undet @hlch a,ctlo^s d.re d.lrected. to be td.ken, compllance o! the ,'ules ol naturq.l Justlce d.re to b I tgeS I-a*Wuit 1nt; +63 2 regdtded q.s la-bullt proolslorts ln the st@tute ltse$, the o,al! excePtlon belng express e*:clusloi]- of the requlrement ln the Proulslor.s of the stdtute or srlch exclusTon bg necessary t npllcdtlon. It ls Jor thls re(Iso'r dlone we aouw agiee ulth the J|.dgment oJ the leqrned slngle Judge thqt the otder wqs i.ot o'ne properlg pdssed partlcularlg when the occdsion Jor o,ppolntment oJ the escecutiue olfTcer oas the alleged nlsmanqgement oJ the tefi.ple. Dlscretlon lested lrt the Comrnlsslorler to dltpoint the executlue olJTcet h,ds to be Judtctousl! exerclsed dnd lf lt tuds to be exerclsed becq.use o! deJectloe or negllgent m.rn<rgement bg the respo\dent No. l. he t,/,.a,s to hloe beefl hedtd beJore ang adaeise o,ctTo,a agdlnst hlm utqs tdken. In that ole.D of the mdtter, ue do 7.ot Jind a g merlt tft the aPPedl @htch ls dismlssed. utlth costs. Adttoc@te's lee n4tees one thotsa,1.d".

4. In the instant case as well, without giving any opportunity to the petitioners, impugned proceedings dated 19.L2.2O13 in Rc.No.A2/13555/2023 have been issued by the 2"d respondent appointing 4th respondent as Executive Officer, representing Sri Brahmaramba Sametha Mallikarjuna Panchayatina Temple and hence, would submit that exercising powers under Section 29 of the Act appointing Executive Officer without granting any opportunity to the petitioners herein would ultimately amounts to abuse of process of law. He would also rely upon the decision rendered by the Hon'lcle Supreme Court of Indian (from Andhra Pradesh) (D.B.) in the matter of Pavani Sridhara Rao os Goaentment of Andhra Pradesh2, would submit that n...A mere look at these recitals shotDs that oftlg on the basis of Memorqndum dated 14.O4.797a passed bg the Assistant Cornmissioner, endoutments Department, Ongole, the said order was passed. We uanted to knouJ from the ledrned counsel lor the respondents uhether there u@s dngthing on record to sllotu thqt qt time the tenple uds mismanaged or the"e was; dnY "eleuant ' t996 I-*Suit 1SC) SOO : I I I I i I . 3 reason for invoking the pouter under the 1966 Act for passing the impugned ord,er, We also uanted to know whether the Memorqnd.um dated. 74.04.7978 issod from the Assistattf, Commtssioner's Office was on record. He Jairlg stdted thdt there uas no such euideflce on record.. In this aieu of the rnatter, the conclusion is ineritable thqt the impugned order was passed. without application of mind there being no lactual basis for inuoking the jurisdiction o.f the competent autlloritg under Section ryoJ the 7966 Act under uhich the impugned order came to be pdssed. on 3O.O5. 1 97a.,." ald without affording a fair opportunity, the said order has been passed, which would harm the interest of the temple managed by Sri Brahmarambika Mallikarjuna Temple Society. Hence, he seeks to set-aside the impugned order passed by the 2"d respondent

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments would submit that order passed by the Division Bench of this Court sha]l not come to the rescue of this case, as the order has been passed exercising powers under Section 27(2)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable ard Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1966, the said Act has been t amended and in place of Section 27, Section 29 of tlne Act has come into force. He would further submit that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paaani Sridho,ra Rco cited supra will not come to rescue of the petitioners in any way. However, he would also submit that the subject matter of this Temple has been declared as Endowments property as per 4 ..,! Section 6(c) of the Telangana State Charitable ald Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 and the petitioners got no locus standi to question the action of the respondents. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition.

6. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel, this Court is of the considered view that the subject temple has been taken over by the Endowments Department as per Section 6(c) of the Telangana State Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987, under these facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stald closed. \ To, //TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR S TION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI M.V.RAJA RAAM, Advocate' [OPUC] 2.TwoCCstoGPFoRENDoWMENTS,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana touTl

3. Two CD CoPies. BSK I^BS "\dgt)/' \ I HIGH COURT DATED:2410312025 f o L.'1 s s* ,-) d o \ :.' i ', l ,I ORDER WP.No.1159 of 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o a 3r