Sri. P. Ravi Shastry v. The State of Telangana

rights of this petitioner as hereditary trustee cum pujari i; contrary to Article 3004, Article 14 of lndian Constitution therefore may decla-r as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, with a direction to handover the opr: ation of Hundi Sri Mahakani Temple for the maintenance of the temple as pe ' section 144 of Act 3011987 as amended acl33l20O7. l.A. NO: 2OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 24530 OF 2016 ) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r rrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Corrr . may be pleased to direct the sth & 6th respondent not to disturb the sar ( iity of temple daily poojapath and Bonalu Jatara of Sri. Mahankali Ammavaru - , mple situated at Lal Bazar, Secunderabad by interfering in to the affairs of tre temple, pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cot r may be pleased to substitute the word as "3rd respondent" instead of the wc"d "4th respondent" which was mentioned due to typographical error, in the or,l rr dated O4tO712016 W.P.M.P No. 24530 of 2016 in W.P. No. 19980 of 2016 p;r sed by this Hon'bte High court in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WVMP. NO: 4405 OF 2016 Between: 1 . The State of Telangana Department, Telangana Telangana State. rep. by its Secretariat, Principal Se r etary, Secretarial llrilding, Endowments Hyderabad,

2. The Commissioner Endowments, Endowments Depart nent, Hyderabad, Telangana State. Boggulakunta, 3 The Asst. Commissioner of Endowments, (Sec I rderabad Division), O/o. Endowments Department Tulja Bhavan, Kachigud a lyderabad. AND 1 Sri. P. Ravi Shastry, S/o Late Sri. P.S. Kumar, Aged r Hereditary Trustee Cum Pujari of Mahankali Temo Tirumalgherry, Secunderabad -01 5. bout 37 years, Occ :, Rl/o. Lal Bazar, ..,PETITIONERS

2. The Executive Officer (Endowments Department), .O/o' C/o' Sri - VintaGnwara Swamy Temirle, Temple Alwal, Secunderbad' 3. The Executive Offioer, O/o. Dhana Lakshi Sonubhai Temple, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

4. Mr. S. Baldhavastalam, S/o Sripath, aged 53 Years, Occ Business, Fl/o H' No 7, gehind Lai Baza,r Police Station, Lal Bazar Post, Tirumaigherry, Secunderabad 500 015. (RespondenURespondent Nos.2 to 4 are not necessary parties in this petition) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under section '1 51 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 orders passed in WPMP.No.24530 of 2016 in WP.No.19880 of 2016, dt.04-07-2016 and dismiss the Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PAVAN KUMAR PUJARI Counsel.for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.4 & 5: SRI CH.SATISH KUMAR' SC FOR ENDOWMENTS The Gourt made the following: ORDER 1 '.-l THE HON'BLE SRI JI'STICE NAGESH BHET)I IAPAKA WRIT PE"IITION No.1998O of 2016 ORDER: The case of petitioner, precisely as per the ivrit afhdavit, is that since the time of his forefathers, they have bet r perlorming the Archakatvam (Pujari) in the Mahankali Templc at Lal Bazar, Trimulgherry; and his mother performed Pujapatl L rn the subject Temple and after her demise, the petitione: inhcrited the Pujari/ Priesthood of the Temple, and he is the hered i e r-v trustee of the Temple. It is his further case that the income of the iemple is under Rs.2 lakh arrd tl-rerefore no Executive Ofhcer can br: a:pointecl for the Temple; and the impugDecl Notice dated 12.O.3.2O: ( issucd by the Executive Officer, on the complaint hled by the 6i respondent (S. Rhakthavatsalam and 4 others) stating that t r p( trtroner is unauthorized person and has unauthorized posses; rn ,rf Ciold and Silvcr ornaments of the Temple, and directing to s rtlrnrt copics of orders, i[ any, appointing the petitioner as Archal: (Prr.jari] ol the subject Temple, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Mr. Pavan Kumar Pujari, le:rrnt:rl crounscl lor the petilioner; and learned Government Pleader for Enclc lrnenLs. Perused the record.

3. Leamed counsel for the petit ioner. rl,hilc making submissions on the iines of ivrit afhdavit, r,l'culd crs s :ntiall-r' contcnd that the subject Temple's incorne is under Rs.2 lakh: Lnri therelore no t l I i 1 , ! I i I I I ! I I 2 \ Executive Oflicer can be appointed, and further the petitioner, and his forefathers, were performing the Archaka of the Temple and the petitioner is a hereditary trustee of the Temple, and therefore the impugned Notice stating the petitioner is unauthorized person having possession of gold and silver articles of the Temple, is illegal and arbitrary.

4. karned Government Pleader, based on the counter affrdavit, would essentially contend that neither the petitioner nor his forefathers ever filed a petition for recognition as hereditary trustees of the subject Temple; that the petitioncr was merely functioning as a Caretaker-cum-Pujari of the Temple till thc appointment of an Executive OIIicer under Section 29 of thc Entlon'ments Act, 1987, and the writ petitioner is merely a non-hereditary Archaka, and accordingly , his name was enrolled in the Departmcntal Rolls. [t is also contended that the petitioner is collecting Puja Rusums (t'rayer Service Charges) from the devotees and there are gold and stlver ornaments of the Temple in unauthorize.d possession ol- thc pt'titioner and therefore the Executive Officer issued the impugnccl Nolice to the petitioner; and further all the hereditary rights were abolisht:d under Section 16 and 144 of the Endowments Act, 1987, ancl rf thc pctitioner feels that he has any rights on the Temple, he can gct his rights declared under Section 87 of the Endowments Act belore thc Endowments Tribunal under Section 162 of the Endowmcnts Act. lt is also contended that Section 3a(3) of the Act and receiving emoluments under Section 144 of the Act is not applicable to the petitioncr as he was never declared as I t I i I I I 3 hereditary Archaka by the competent authority under i ection 77 of thc repealed Endowments Act, 1966; and further the petili ,ner is deputing an assistant to perform archaka duties in his place ar d not attending the duties regularly- It is further submitted that the E xecutive Officer has promptly been depositing the Hundi offerings into the Bank Account by opening the Hundi in the presence of Depi 'tmcntal person and also managing the affairs of the Temple in coordir ation u,ith lor:al devotees. [t is cr>ntended that the petitioner filed this :it pctition u,ith ^ illegal motive to grab the Temple property.

5. Having considered the respective submissrc -rs and pcrused the record, at the outset, it is relevant to note that as : :r Section 29 of the Endowmenrs Act, 1987 (Act 30 of f987), the Con r rissioner ol- t he Endovvments Dcpartment, is empowered to appoir r an Exccrr t ive C)fficcr even to a Temple that has income of under R; 2 lakl-rs, in t hr' larger irrterest of protection of assets of the Templ : ancl t hc rt.li r rt. merely the incorne cannot be the sole criteria to contc. .rl thzrt thcrc is no requirement lbr an Executive Oflicer. Further, in th:: inslirnt casr', it tlrc specific contention of the 3.d resp ) ldcrrt Assisttr tr t Commissioncr, at paragraph No.3 of the counter, thi r the pet rtion( r, except stvling himself as a hereditarJr trustee and 1 :rforming Puja (praycr rituerts) as Pujari (Priest) in the subject Tcr I Ic, nt'it hcr thc: petitioner nor any of his forefathers ever obtainer. rccognition trs Hereditary Trusrces from the competent authority ( i hcr undcr lhc repealed Endowments Act, 1966 or present Endowmc r s Act, l ()U7. I r is also the specific contention, borne out by the recor<l hat in thc r' ear ./ t, : Ii I ! I I i i f , 4 1985, a Trrst Board has been constituted for the Temple, and as the Temple has land property of about Ac.1-20 guntas covered by Temple Complex and Open place, and in view of the allegations against the petitioner about misuse/mismanagement of funds, an Executive Ofhcer has been appointed under Section 29 of the Endowments Act, 1987.

6. It is to be noted that there is no material on record, in any of the material papers filed witJl the writ petition, that the petitioner has obtained or been recognized as Hereditary Trustee of the subject Tempie. In that view of the matter, and further in vicw o[ the powers of the Commissioner, Endowments, under Section 29 of the Act, to appoint an Executive Offrcer to ensure proper protection of Temple property, including the funds/income of the Temple, thc action of the Executive Officer, in issuing impugned Notice dated 12.03.2016, directing the petitioner to produce a copy of the orders whcreunder the petitioner is authorized to keep in his custody the ()olcl and Silver articles of the Temple, cannot be said to be illegal. F-urther, the impugned Notice was issued on a complaint filed b-v 6'r' rcspondent on 27 . lO .2O l5alleging that the petitioner is in unauthorizcd possession of the gold and silver articles pertaining to the Te mple. 7' At this juncture, it is to be noted that at pagc No.46 of the wril petition, the petitioner, in the capacity of Archaka, addressed a Ietter ' to' tl"e ACP, Begumpet in July 2O 14, rcquesting police ; protection/ bandobust in connection with Bonalu Festival; and ano[her letter at Page No.45 to the Inspector of Police, Trimulgherry Police 5 Station, for permission to install loud speakers and ,r elcome stage for Mahankali Jathara. Further, the petitioner filed an .\ rplication before the Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No., ;7 of 2024, by making the 3.1 respondent(Assistant Commissioner as party to the proceedings. The petitioner prayed the Tribunal to -, strain one M.S. Murali S/o late Satyanarayana, from interfering witt the petitioner's possession over the Temple and its religious affairs ar t daily poojapath (prayer rituals). In Lhe said O.A., the Tribunal, while ssuing Notice to the respondents, directing to maintain'status Quo" til hling of counter alflclavit.

8. In view of the petitioner claiming possessi I r and hereditary trusleeship of the subject Temple, whether the petitiorr, r is a hereditary trustee, and vvhether any of his forefathers r /ere previously declared / rccognized as hereditary trustees, and wt( ther any righ ts havc :rccrucd to the petitioner by such alleged here<t. -ary trusteeship are questions of lact that cannot be determined b] [his Court in a summary proceeding with the material available on rerr rd.

9. [n rhat view ol the matter, this Court is I ' the considercd vier,r' that thc appropriate remedy for the petitioner is -o approach thc: Endowments Tribunal to agitate his grievance. Therel: 'e, this Court is not inclined to consider the various case-Iaw sought t( be relied on b,v eithcr of thc parties, at this stage of writ proceedings, when there zrre queslions of fact involved. The relief sought for by the 1 etitioner in this writ petition cannot, therefore, be granted. ..? ( t I l I T 6 Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed' No costs' 10. Petitioner is at liberty to agitate his atleged rights before the Tribunai in O.A.No.S7 of 2024, by raising all the contentions that are sought to be raised in this writ petition, and adduce evidence in support of the contentions, including relevant case-law he seeks to rely on' by filing appropriate application in the pending O'A'No'S7 of 2024 The Tribunal shall consider the respective contentions and' after due enquiry by affording opportunity of hearing and considering the evidence that may beadducedbytherespectiveparties,passappropriateordersin accordance r,r'ith lau', aS expeditiously as practicabie' i 1. Miscellaneous petitions' pending if any' shatt stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/.A MED ABDULLA K ISTANT R RAR TION OFFICER One CC to SRI PAVAN KUMAR PUJARI, Advocate I One CC to SRI CH.SATISH KUMAR, SC FOR ENDOW ENTS [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR ENDOWMENTS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad {OUTI Two CD Copies f*- To, 1 2 3 4 BSR PMK l, t, HIGH COURT DATED:2610812025 ( ORDER WP.No.19980 of 2016 -'- 1=:::\ .:.*{,ii 'cC it,. iJ ir \i W l\. ;. 'l- -,:. i\\ ;'1ril,: l ,.\ ,../ :r' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS tA- \\ L)