Ch.Venkat Reddy v. 1. The State of Telangana

4. The Executive Officer, Sri Kondada Ramayalam Street No.8, Satyanarayana Swamy Nagar Habsiguda, HYderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of ltrlandamus calling for records relating to the proceedings in D.Dis. No.A2l38212017 , daled 08th February, 2017 and set as.ide the same, and declare it as illegal, arbitrary, untenable and without authority, and consequently direct the respondents to keep the complete charge of the temple with the Endowment Department Only. |.A.NO:1 OF 2017 (WPMP.NO:7965 OF 2017) 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 stay the proceedings in D.Dis. No.A2l3B2l2O17 , dated 8th February, 20.12, passed by the 2nd Respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI AEDULA GOVINDA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos..l to 3 : SRt MANGILAL NAIK, GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: SRI K.JAGAN MOHAN REDDY The Court made the following ORDER Ir ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.6497 OF 2Ot7 The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief: "-... to issue a writ of Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings in D.Dis. No.A2/ 38212017, dated O8ft February'2O17 and to set aside the same declaring it as illegal, arbitrary, untenable and without authority and consequently direct the respondents to keep the complete charge o the temple with the "Endon'ment Department only . "

2. Heard Sri A.Govinda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mangilal Naik, learned Government Pleader for the Endowments.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sri Kodanda Ramalayam, situated at Street No.8, Satyanarayarra Swamy Nagar, Habsiguda rvas under control of the Endowments Department for long time. Further, the local people, having political influence, have formed into a self-styled committee claiming to be the trustees of the temple and are misappropriating the funds, movable and immovable properties of the temple' They are trying to exert pressure on the respondent officials with malafide intentions Lo take over complete charge over the temple' Accordingly, they made a representation dated 02'Ol '2017 to tl:.e 1"t respondent requesting to handover the charge of the temple' '-] l t I I Pagc 2 ofs There is no trustee to the temple. The petitioner being a devotee of the temple by apprehending possibilig of misappropriation of funds, gold, movable and immovable properties, filed the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further subrnils that the impugned proceedrngs of the respondent No.2 are beyond authority, without any ground report and are made having been influenced by the political pressure. The seif sg,led committee members are interested only in Kalyanamandapam of the temple but not in temple. The self-styled committee and the respondent Nos.3 and 4 did not disclose the quantum of lxed deposits and gold lying in the bank pertaining to the remple.

5. Thc learned Government pleader lor Endowments, on the other hand, opposing the present u,rit petition, contended that the subject tempie is published undcr Section 6(c)(ii) of the Endowments Act, 3O/ 1987 and the temple lalls under the administrative control of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ranga Reddy Drstrict. On a complaint received regarding the misappropriation of temple funds, an enquiry has been conducted and time has been given to the self_ styled committee members for submission of accounts but they failed to submit the same within the stipulated time and hence, t \ .-- l I I I : i I I I I I I I I I I Page 3 of5 theAssistantCommissionerrecommendedforappointmentof Executive Offrcer and accordingly, the Commissroner' one smt L Bhagra Laxmr' Endowments Department appointed charge to the temPle vide Executive Officer as full additional proceedings in D.Dis.No.A2l 11216l2016, dated 24'll'2076 as per Section 29 of the Endowments Act, 30/ lg8T Subsequently' upon the representation madc by lhe Chairman of the self-styled committeedated02.ol.2OlTanduponenquiryreportsubmitted by the Special Deputy Colleclor, Land Protection Cell' Endowments Department the Commissioner of Endowments issued orders deleting the temple from the charge of the Executive of{icerwithadirectiontomakeoverthecompletechargeofthe temple to the trustee of the temple vide Proceedings in D.Dis.No.A2l 3 8212017, dated O8'02'2O17 and till such time the affairs of the temple are being managed by the self-styled committee only. As per Section 154 of the Act' the Government is only competent to exempt any provisions of the Endowments Act' Stating thus, he prayed to dismiss the present writ petition'

6. Having hearcl the rival contentions advanced on either side and perusing the material on record inciuding the instructions given by the Assistant Commissioner' Endowments Department, Ranga Reddy District, this Court is of the opinion Page 4 ol5 that the proceedings of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, in D.Dis.No.A2l3 82 /20 j,7 , datccl Oa.O2.2Ol7 directing Smt.L.Bhagra Laxmi, Executirre Officer to make over the complete charge of the temple to the trustee in the presence of residents of the locality basing on the report submitted by the Special Deputy Collector Land Protection Cell, Endorvments Department, Hyderabad rn Lr.No.C1/382 /2012, dated 76.01.2017 cannot stand for legal scrutiny. The record shows that when Lhe commiftee was directed to submit the accounts, they failed to submit the same rvithin Lhe stipulated time and in that view of the matter only, the temple rvas given full additional charge to the Executive Ofhcer. This itself raises doubt regarding the complained misappropriation of funds ancl mismanagement of the temple by the said committee. Subsequcntly, when the committce made a representation dated 02. O 1 .2 O 17 to the 1"r respondcnt requesting to handover the charge of the temple, taking shelter under the guise of report submitted by the Special Deputy Collcctor Land Protection Cell, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, dated 16.01.2O17 in Lr.No.Cll382l2OIZ, the charge of the tcmple r.r,as handed over to the committee. In view of the above, this Court sets aside the impugned proceedings and directs the respondent/ ofl-rcials to take appropriate action in accordance with laq,. .\ 7 . With the above obsetwations, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to the costs.

8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. AMMAJI PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To

2. .)

5. 6 7 8 o ngana State, The Principal Secretary, Endowment Department T Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad. The Commissioner, Endowment Department Boggulakunta, Koti, Hyderabad Telangana State. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, R.R.District O/o. Boggulakunta, Koti, Hyderabad Telangana State. The Executive Officer, Sri Kondada Ramayalam Street No.B, Satyanarayana Swamy Nagar Habsiguda, Hyderabad. Two CCs to GP FOR ENDOWTVENTS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to SRI K.JAGAN IvIOHAN REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) One CC to SRI AEDULA GOVINDA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI MANGILAL NAIK, Advocate (OPUC) Two CD Copies SA TJ 0 \ : HIGH COURT DATED:1 110412025 ( J 3 IJ 'l1-,,- r I Art 1E IUBM D : 'l ',/ ORDER WP.No.6497 of 2017 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \ t6 q-l 6