High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Oourt may be pleased to pass an order or orders one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI by quashing the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in GO Rt No'384 dated 31-08-20'16 calling the entire records confirming the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in File No'H1/3 4207l2l}sdated 06-08-2005 and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, against the principal of natural lustice and against the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious lnstitutions & Endowments Act, 1987. I I i i i 1 t I I I I I t t l l ( I i I l I ; i l.A. NO:1 OF ?Jp1.5_ petition unr:e r Sect WPMP. NO:420190F2016 'r.c i,,,i"pll;;:'J,.:;j,:,'#:::,J.,', cir,;rrr;tances stated in the arridavit tne High iloul nrily be pleased to stay the proce.riirr:ls or tn" u", ,-^^::t"':'' ;:i:::*:l*], : ##ld:.:ffi ;j: ): : t1:: r*;:[: :l Counsel for the pet itioner: Counsel for the Res; SRI. SURESH SHIV SAGAR Dondents: SRI MANGILAL r'crrowing: .RDER NAIK GP f:oR ENtrowMENTs The Court made the i EI i ai.i.: ?HE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.34 065 0F 2016 I ORDER: The present writ petition is tiled by the petitioner seeking the foliowing relie [: ".... to issue a writ of Certiorari by quashing the impugned proceedings of the 1"t respondent in GO Rt.No.384, dated 31.08.2016, Calling the entiie records confirming the orders passerl by the 2"d respondent in File No-H1/34207 12005, dated 06.08,2005 and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, aElainst the principles of natural justice ancl against the provisionJ oi the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu nelilgious Institutions & Endowments Act.. "

2. Heard Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioners, appeared on-line and Sri Mangilal Naik, learned Government Pleader for the trndowments.

3. Learned counsel for the petitroner, appearing on_line, would submit that the respondent No.1 ought to have appreciated the fact that the petitioner herein is the rightful successor of late Balabadra Das, having been appointed as Chela by conducting Chader Proshi in the presence of Bharatiya Shatdarshan Sadh Samah, Hyderabad on O7.OZ.2OO2, and. since then he has been performing poojas and rituals as per Lhe customs and Lraditions of the Math and under Section 53 of the Act 30 lg7 , he should be appolnted as Mahant. Despite the saicl fact, giving adoption of the Math to the respondent No.4 by the respondent No.2 under Section 1a5(1) of the Ap Charitable and Hindu Religious I \ Page 2 ol'.1 \-Lnrrl@3 -ur - InstitutiorLs :rl.L ; Elldowments ACt, 1987 is illega1, arb.t-zLt y etnd to that extc .t I lnevance has been registere d on tlle filt o1' the responderl. i',:'..) vide proceedings in File No Fl 1/il '12C7/2005' datecl O6.i)R. , () r5. Further, aggrieved by thc s: id iLct i:n of the responde trt I'l,r 2 the petitioncr filed WP No liOT!)(r of 2010' whercin :-is (,1 :rrrt, vide its order d,ated'28 04'2014, I)erritted the petltiolrer t.) ii,' an appeal under Section 145(4) of the llct 30 of L987 a1g: itr s; t th e impugned order passed lll' t I r Deputy Commisl.;,,rttt'r of Enclowments, Hyderabad Vicle llr'cceedings D.Dis.Nc,.l{ I t''12O7 l05, dated 06 08 2OO5 u'ithir'' a rt:ri<'d of two monlhs [-rtr I lrc datc of receipt of a copy of the saic 'lrc]er' This Court f,-l rl h,: I he lcl that rf such appeal is l-ilec trt fore the Governnr:nt .r ithin the stipulated time, the sarne shall be considert rl a r: altpt'opriate orders be passcd in acco'ck nce with petltlon(:' lau, rvitl-itr tr 1r rtod of three months thereafter' Act:or':l ng1y, the lil.r: an appcal against the serid c rdc ol lhe 2"d Ir pr:rsuance of thc same, the 1'r reslpcl:lCcnt has rnpugned proceedings in GOM s.No.38 1, dated passecl th cr responcl:1rl I'iug various reasons. For convenietlce ;ake, the 31.08.2() ', relevanL rcil:i(tIis given in the sard ordcr are exlrailtei ilt:reunder: a Government obser-ve that, Scction i4 o i t1 c Act is re r.'anl '( lhe claim of the appellant in regard to his EPpoi ]fnrent as jLrc.( rr")r to late Sri Balabhadra Das section 5+ stipltl:rl3s that a \T,rth,:( I,ipati may nominate a successor subject l.o th(r p-'visrons of u{c (1 13. It further provides such nomilatioir sl all be in i nrat ( ro the Dharmika Parishad iCommis ;ion'-'r p iot to I I '.a, I i I'agc 3 of4 O3.O_1.2008) within (90) <Iays of such nomination and a nomination sha.ll not be complete unless it is recognized by the Dharmika Parishad. In the case of the appellant neither the fulhlment o[ the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 53 nor the intimation ard recognition as provided in section 54(l) is urged or provided. The appellant, therefore, cannot be recognized as the successor Maha:nth of late Sri Balabhadra Das. ihe objection taken by ISKCON (R3) to his locus standi, it foltows, is well founded. 7- Government also crbserve from a irerusal of copies of the_letters addressed by late Sri Balabhadra Das to Commisiioner, Endowments and the president, ISKCON and the agreement dated 18.07-2005 between late Sri Balabhadra Das and the presrdent, ISKCON, referred to in para 4 supra, that late Sri Balabhadra Das stated therein in clear terms that he does not have any chela or male progeny to execute duties of the Mutt, further and that he was not in a position to move and execute any of the religious duties to be performed as a lv{ahanth to uphold the sanctity dignity in the said Mutt in all respects. Admittedly, the M;tt has no other properties except the two temple premises. In the event, the impugned order, rvhich refers to the circumstances reported by the then Mahanth of the subject Mutt before according permission for the adoption, cannot be viewed as noi futfilling th"e ingredients of section 145(l) o the Act. ISKCON (R-3) is an institutioin of repute and the interests of the subject matter Mutt would be well served with the impugned adoption order.,, "and

4. Accordingly, the Government declined to inLerfere with the impugned order of the commissioner, Endowments in proceedings D.Dis.No.H 1/ 342OT /OS, dated 06.O8.2O05. Challenging rhe said Government Order in RT No.384 dated 31.Og.20i6, the present writ petition is fite d.

5. The learned Government pleader for Endowments would submit that the impugned Government Orcler does not call for any interference since the petitioner, having faiied in the appeal f,rled under Section MS$l of the Act 30 of 1987 against the proceedings in D.Dis.No.H 1/34202 /OS, datecl 06.0g.2OO5 in hled \ t i ['asc { oi { furtherar r:: <;l hc directions of this Court vicle r:rrlt:t s dated 28.O4.2O1'l ir '\rI) No.3O796 of 2OlO, approacheC tlris Oourt by way ol tbt tlr,'s ( rlt criminal petition' Further, lal(' Sri Ilalabhadra Das acldrc ss, t lt:lters [o Commissioner, Endov me -rls and the Presiden . IS1,.(l()N stating that he did not have a 11' che a or rnale progeny I o t.i -: Lite duties of the Mutt The zLgre'lrn: rt dated P -esident,

18.07.200-i lrt-ttvt:cn late Sri Balabhadra Das ar:d the ISKCON (t:)ltl rl',rs the above said fact' Statrng t lus rtr< learned Governrr.r:nt [']t,tder seeks to dismiss the present writ [)(:t tlon (r. 'l lis Court, having hearcl the learnc<r' collns(:l lbr the petitior-rer :tn:1 ltarned Government Pleader and alter penlsing the material ,)n I ') )rd, does not sec anv reason or grrltnd ro interfere rtti't,onecl order passed by the rt'sponde 'rt No l' with th€ AccordirLlllr. lt s u'rit petition is dismissed' 7 : thc rcsult, the s'rit petition is disrnisr;td No order as to cosi,i

8. r\:i rt seql-lei, misccllaneous pctirions if r:nr', pending, To, 1 2 3 KKS BSR shall slrLrrrl rli ; nissed //TRUE COPY// SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI SE.ISTANT REGISTRAR v SECTTION OFFICER IT J One CC. tc SiFl SURESH SHIV SAGAR Advocate [OPU(] Two CCs; to G t, FoR ENDOWMENTS, High Cou( fc,r the lstate of Telanga n a. [{) LJT1 Two CD Oop er : I HIGH COURT DATED:1 110412025 ORDER WP.No.34065 of 2016 -.,1 . ,,O i> ,s $;' \^S ( .r, o tH +- .?;,.. \ I \ 1 I I DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 9rt a(-) 6t)^ I