Chitturi Bala Anjaneya Swamy v. Kanuri Janaki Rama Rao

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari ) Aggrieved by the order, dated 25.09.2008 passed in W.P. No.21106 of 2008 by a learned Single Judge directing the third respondent to consider the cases of the applicants who responded the notification dated

5.8.2008 inclusive of the applicants who submitted their application response the notification dated

15.9.2008, for the purpose of constituting a Trust Board for Sri Panchamukha Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Palakol, West Godavari District, the writ petitioners are in appeal. The case of the appellants is that in response to the notification dated 5.8.2008 issued by the third respondent they have submitted applications for trusteeship for the Trust Board of Sri Panchamukha Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Palakol, West Godavari District. The said notification was published on 14.8.2008 and the last date of submission of applications was 20 days from the date of publication. The appellants are said to have submitted their applications within the time stipulated, pursuant to the notification. While so, pending consideration of applications so received by the third respondent, the third respondent has issued a fresh notification dated

15.9.2008 for the very same purpose. Questioning the same, the appellants herein filed the above writ petition contending that no power is vested with the third respondent to issue a second notification. The grievance of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that the second notification dated 15.9.2008 was issued purposefully with the object of permitting the persons of his choice to submit the applications at a belated stage. The learned Single Judge having heard learned counsel for the writ petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments, disposed of the writ petition, as indicated above, observing that though there is no mention about the notification dated 5.8.2008 the second notification dated 15.9.2008, applications received pursuant to the notification dated

5.8.2008 shall also be taken into account. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Appeal is filed. Heard Mr.A.V. Sesha Sai, learned counsel for the appellants, learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Mr. V.T.M. Prasad, learned counsel for the fourth respondent temple. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the third respondent is not vested with the power to issue a fresh notification without acting on earlier notification. He further contended that even assuming that no applications are received pursuant to the notification dated 15.8.2008, the third respondent ought to have followed Rule 5(2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987, framed under sub-Sec.(3) of Section 17 read with Sec. 153 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, which are in force and enables the Competent Authority to appoint the trustees. It says that if no applications are received for the appointment of trustees, the competent authority shall ascertain the names of the persons qualified in terms of Sec. 18 and free from disqualifications in terms of Sec. 19 and obtain applications from them for being appointed as trustees. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that it is not the case of the respondents that no applications were received pursuant to the notification dated 15.8.2008 inasmuch as apart from the appellants, seven other applications were received and the respondents without appointing any of the applicants as Trustees to the Board, have erroneously issued the notification dated 15.9.2008, which is contrary to Rule 5(2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987 and, is, therefore, liable to be quashed. On 26.6.2009, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments was directed to produce the records for perusal of the court, but the records are not produced. The appointment of Trustees is governed by the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987, which have been published in GO Ms. No. 258 Revenue (Endowments-I) Department Dated 31.3.1988, published in the Extraordinary A.P. Gazette dated 26.7.1988. Rule 3 thereof says that the Assistant Commissioner in whose territorial jurisdiction institution or endowment situated shall, ninety days before the expiry of the term of the Trust Board, report to the authority competent to appoint trustees, about the date of expiry of the term of the Trust Board. Rule 4, thereof lays down that the Authority competent to appoint trustees shall, forthwith on a report received under Rule 3, cause publication of the notice which shall be affixed on the notice board of the office or on the front door of the institution or endowment or in any conspicuous place where there is no institution; on the notice board of the Sarpanch, Mandal Revenue Officer, Municipal Office, or as the case may be and on the notice board of the office of the Commissioner, Regional Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner and Inspector as the case may be. Proviso to this Rule says that the Competent Authority may also order cause of publication of the notice in any daily newspaper in the language of the locality at the cost of the Institution or Endowment, if it is situated in big cities and is capable of meeting the cost of publication. Rule 5 of the above Rules, around which the case of the appellants revolves, reads as under: 5(1) The application for the appointment of the Trustee shall be submitted in Form – II trustees, (2) If no applications are received for appointment the competent authority shall ascertain the names of the persons qualified in disqualifications in terms of Section 19 and obtain applications from them for being appointed as trustees. of Section 18 The action of the respondents in issuing second notification dated 15.9.2008 when, admittedly, apart from the appellants, seven others have applied for appointment as trustees to the Trust Board for Sri Panchamukha Anjaneya Temple, Palakole, West Godavari District, without considering the same, is directly in violation of Rule 5(2) of the Rules. Learned Government Pleader for Endowment did not bring to our notice any provision, which enables the third respondent to issue a second notification without acting on the earlier notification. The third respondent, having received the applications from the appellants and seven others, in the absence of any provision which vests with him the power to issue a second notification, is under obligation to follow Rule 5(2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987. Therefore, when no such power vests in the third respondent to issue a second notification and in the absence of any material before this court which enables the third respondent to issue a second notification for the very same purpose, we hold that the notification dated

15.9.2008, is issued without following the procedure contemplated under Rule 5(2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions Endowments Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987 and consequently, has no force of law and is liable to be quashed and the same is accordingly quashed. The Writ Appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari __________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar July 6, 2009 MAS