High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. .7

4. State of Telangana, Endowments (Revenue-ll) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Principal Secretary. The Commissloner/ Director, Endowments Department, Telangana state,at Dharmikha Bhavan, Boggulakunta,Hyderabad. The Asst.Commissioner, Endowments, Ranga Reddy District, at Dharmikha Bhavan, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad.

Sri Trinethra Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Sahebnagar Village, Hayathnagar lVlandal, Ranga Reddy District. Rep.by its Executive officer. ...RESPONDENTS Petition rrdr: Article 226 of the constitution of lndia prerying that in the in the affidavit filed therewith, the tligh court may be circumstances siat€d pleased to issue ap r -opriate writ, order or direction, more partic ularly, a writ of Mandamus, de:l::ring the inaction of the Respondents No.li her.ein, inaction of the respondents l'l r.3 herein, i.e., the Asst. commissioner Endowments, R.R:District, in conr trcting the oath of office and Secrec,r to the petitioners herein who are at) rrtinted as Trustees of the Trust Board r.f Sri Trinethra Anjaneya Swarnv 'f :mple, Sahebnagar Village, Hayathna(,ar ,vlandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illt:qal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the Act, and Rules of the En'Jc wrr r:nts Act,19B7. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition l nr:rer .liection 151 cpc praying that in the ci-cun stances stated in the affidavit f ile J i r support of the petition, the High court ma\,, be pleased to direct the Respcrrdt: r ls No.3 herein, to conduct/ administer the oath of office and secrecy to the 3ppe;nted rrustees/ petitioners herein, an< to conduct a special meeting fr.,r i l:ction of the chairman of the Trust Bo rrd rorthwith, of Sri Trinethra Anjanr:yp S r,vamy Temple, Sahebnagar Village Ha ya - nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy D,strict pending disposal of main writ petition. Counsel for the Pr:,titioner: SRI SUDARSHAN REDDy DUDDUGUi,ITA counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: Ms. sATLAJA, AGp FoR ENDowMENTS Counsel for the Re,s oondent No.4: SRI CH.SATISH KUMAR, SC FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made tl-re f :llowing: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.15 6o2 of 2O2S ORDER: This writ petition is filed to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondent No.3 herein, i.e_, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, R.R District, in conducing the Oath of Office and Secrecy to the petitioner herein who are appointed as Trustees of the Trust Board of Sri Trinethra Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Sahebnagar Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary and contrar5r to the provisions of the Act, ald Rules of the Endowments Act, 19g7 and pass such other order or orders. 2 Heard Sri D.Sudarshan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Sailaja, learned Assistant Government pleader for Endowrnents appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3 and Sri Ch.Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for ) I I I , 2 Endo,.r,r:r e:nts appearing for respondent No.4 . P':rused the mrrtr rials available on record. 3 "t-re brief facts leading to fiIing ol th s writ petit1on iLre that the petitioners a_re appoinr ed AS truster:s, to the Sri Trinethra Anj a,neyrr S iwarny Tem pJ,-- -r e spondent No.4 vide proceedings dated

25.44 2t)25 and as per the said proceeciingr;, the petrtro rt: -ri are requested to take oath of ,>ffic e and secrcc',r ls required under Sub-Section (2) of the Sect.orr () of the Act 30/87 before the-y enter upon office. [f ;ury trustee fails to take, within tlLirtl days from the late on which he was appointeci, the Oath of officr' a.rc. secrecy laid down in Sutr-Se cticn (21 he/shr: sh.all cease to hold office. Th;at lreing the conditi tn the petitioners have been appr,intr:d as trust 3€ s :tre not been allowed to take oat i by respc,nrk'rrt No.3. Aggrieved thereby the presen - rvrit petitior: has been filed by the petitioners. 4 l-,t irrned counsel for the petitioner s l,,ould contenrl r hat the petitioners afe deprirred of their 3 legitimate rights. Though the petitioners have been appointed as trustees, no action has been taken by respondent No.3 to administer the Oath of office and secrecy to the appointed Trustees, though he is also authorized to conduct a special meeting of the trustees to conduct the election ol the Chairman of the Trust Board as per the rules framed under Section 20 of the Act, 1987, still said meeting was also not conducted and no steps have been taken to cause notice for taking oath to enable the petitioners to take oath of office and secrecy, thereby the right of the petitioners to function as trustees to the said Temple. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely 5. on the Judgment passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.1O20 and 1337 of 2OO7 in case of Rapolu Sudhakcr and another u. Gouerrtment of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endouments IIfi) Depdrtment and otherst and submitted that the petitioners are ' zooz 121 aLt 582 4 ! rrvillfitllr-iulpointed as trustees and not allou,:d t: take Oatf ar the behest of respondent No.3. The petit onr'r'ri are entitled to take Oath of c ffic: and func'-ior. ? s trustees by virtue of appointment l)_\. the respon lt: tt No.2 vide procer:dings in Rc. N r. Ir.:. / 3837 I 2O25, dated 25.O4.2025. _i.her efore, he se el,.s -o allow this writ petition.

6. t.) r the other hand, learne,l {ss stant Gove-r-rntrnt Pleader for Endowment a;pelring for respcn:1r rr Nos. 1 to 3 would submit that a; pe r the provrsi,,ns under Section l9(2) and (3) oI the Endo ,r':n,: : ts Act, 1987 , L]ne petitioners u.ere d I r,:cteci to ta[:c ( ) I th within a period of thirty da1.s [ror I the date of ii:pointment, but they . have fa.L1ec1 to take Oath, t l-rrr. cfore, they have lost their right to ap roint as tru sr er: ; It is further submitted that the Fetlt oner have tr'en lailed on their part and seekirrg anr -elief in thi s u'r i- petition is cannot be permitted as they have I rs1 their right to appoint as 1 rlt s ,ees. Thererbre . reeks permission of this Court rhert the 5 official respondents of the Temple to take necessary action in accordance with 1aw to appoint trustees afresh Having heard learned counsel for the 7 . petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for responclent Nos' 1 to 3 and learned Stand.ing Counsel for Endowments appearing for respondent No.4, this Court on al earlier occasion examined the similar circumstances in the matter of Rapolu Sudhakar and another (Cited supra) and the relevant observations as under: iv) Is there any embargo on oath taking: After fiting the writ petition, tl Le petitioner Ln W.P.No.102O of 2OO7 fited odditional afftdouits ln one such afftd.auit, a contention is roised thal the respond.ents 4 to 12 Ltouing faited to toke oath of oflice and secrecy tttithin thirtg days from the date of the G.O. ceose to hotd offce The submission is misconcetued-. A pentsal of the impugned G O tuould shotu that the ftrst respondent white appointing respond"ents 4 to 12 directed tLLe second respondent to take steps to administer ooth of office and secrecA to the persons appointed and also for election of the Choirrnan of the Trust Board., as per the prouisions of 6 I .i )c ::1t 't 2O of the Act. The impugned G. O. r_,rzs ,-ssu :cj ,tn r,[ . ] .2007. Euen before the Commissi,trler (Dt.i t.cl t\ i ,.. ti ) .tctton as ordered, by the Gouernmet,j. tl e .,u il ltr i i i turts f.led on 17.1.2007 and, therefare. ttectr( tL q, ]t )'' the Act has no applicotion. [JnLess anrl un tL t't( :;((.tld respondent conuenes meeting ltu ll;sr,lrg I oLt(',: t) all the appointed. trustees, the time o.f thiny orii,s ,lrre.s not start ntnning. Therefore, th(.re (rrnn.t)t b.: t. t t trnpedrment for respondents 4 to I 2 tc tr.rk e or1 ,)' ol.fice and secrecA under Section lSt(2) ,f thz t1:l u.- ,tnd tuhen the seconcl respondent take sf(,p.! I ) cr lt' tr ,;'er ottth of ofj.ce and secrecg_ Be it c:lso ut:e,l tl u :. per Section l9(2) of the Act, it is onl..1 :h: ('. tn,ltt ;.;i<:tner, tuho has to ad_minister oath o-f :t-fJ tc, : etL(i s(' .1etary to respondents 4 to 12 and_ lhis pr,rce.sr; is tyr I ,, :117nn1sngg. B. -l lr,.: matter in this writ petition is simir ar 10 Lhe crs,e rr W.p.Nos. 1020 and 1337 of !lOO., arLd as per tl- e said proceedings, the petitioners are reque strrcl to take oath of office and se(,rec,. as requir c(l L nder Sub_section (2) of the S<:ction 9 of the A c L )t( I 87 before they enter upon ofl ice, but respollcl :rn, No.3 authority has not taken iu-ly stel)s in accorc'alt(.( u.ith law, resultantly, did not allc\\. t1em to takr: , ,at ! of the oflice and secrecy. As per Sec tion . ( 7 19(21 of the Act, it ts only the Commissioner- respondent No.3, who has to administer oath of oflice and secretarSr of petitioners' Unlcss and until the respondent Assistant Commissroner, Endowments No.3 convenes meeting by issuing nolice to all the appointed trustees, the time of thirty days does not start running. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No 3 to administer the oath of Oflice and secrecy in terms of Section 19(2) of the Act, pursuant to the proceedings Rc.No.F4l3837 12025 datcd 25'04'2025, issucd by the respondent No.2, to appoint the Petitioners as non-hereditary trustees of Sri Trinethra Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Shhebnagar Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' Thus, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Assistant Commissioner-respondent No 3 on 25'06'2025 and take oath of office and secrecy in accordance with \ law. I I ! 8 ) \ 9 ,r r:cordingly, this Writ petition is dislrose d of \ [ sr:ellaneous applications, if :Ln.v petrding. shall a s:- itand closed //TRUE COPYII SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSI$TANT REGISTRAR ,SEC:TION OFFICER To, 1 The Prinr:ipr1 ll,?cret3ry, Endowments (Revenue-ll) Departm,:nt, Secretariat, Hyderabad S li rle of Telangana. The Commiss;i tner/ Director, Endorr/ments Department, Tel,angana state,at Dharmikha ':lh.' r an. Boggulakunta, Hyderabad. The Asst C.nlnissioner, Endowments, Ranga Reddy Districr, at Dharmikha Bhavan. Fio lgtr l;tkunta.Hyderabad. The Executivi: .fficer, Sri Trinethra linjqneya Swanry Temp le, Sahebnagar Village.Hay;rthr irgar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. One CC kr SlRl S;UDARSHAN REDDY DUDDUGUNTA, AJvocate [OPUC] One CC kr S;Rl (;H.SATISH KUIVAR, SC FOR ENDOWMENTI) [OPUC] Two CCs to GF =OR ENDOWIVENTS, High Court for the Sta e of Tetangana at Hyderabarj IOJTI Two CD Copies 2 3 4 5 b 7 B. BSR GJP *( HIGH COIJIRI' DATED:1 il0e,12025 ORDER WP.No.156t0l2 of 2025 I ! ./" ,:i ) ) ..),, .\ tits s t4 14. ( 1 JUIJ :,. o .\\ l_..'r,,',,- DISPOSINCi rOF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT CC,STS l1lalzr