A POOORNACHANDRARAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Seethatamavadhuta of Patmatalanka of Vijayawada. Krishna District. had founded "Tapovanam and created a trust for its running. The trust deed was first registered on 15-4-1951. The land and the buildings belonging to the said Avadhuta, were declared to be the trust properties to be used for the purpose mentioned in the trust deed which are those to help and enable the spiritually minded to pursue and practice Sadhanas connected with Bhakthi, Gnana and Yoga, Although the founder desired that such persons should be tradition-bound, he laid it down that the use if the Tapovanam should be open to all irrespective of the caste, creed and religion. In this first trust deed the aforesaid Seetharamavadhuta had appointed himself as the sole Managing Trustee. He nominated the present writ petitioner to succeed him as the trustee on his demise. Later, on 20-3-58 the aforesaid Seetharamavadhuta had educated a supplementary trust deed appointing five trustee including himself to administer the trust. On a subsequent date on 22-10-1963 the said Avadhuta had modified the earlier first trust deed dated 15-4 -4-1951 and the supplementary trust deed dated 20-3-58. On 28-10-63 he executed yet another registered trust deed appointing one Sri Pingali Narasimharao as President and Managing Trustee and vesting properties and all his powers in him for the proper administration of the trust. Under the last trust deed he had nominated twelve persons including himself as trustees to assist the above Managing Trustee Sri Pingali Narasimharao. Through all these changes the trust had undergone the dedication of the properties to trustee remained unaltered; so were the trust purposes. The aforesaid Avadhuta died in the year 1965. On the death of Advadhuta the present writ petitioner Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 17 of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) he filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner. Endowments, Kakijada for a declaration to that effect. The petitioner asked for this statutory relief. because a doubt was created about his position as a trustee. While he was mentioned as one of the trustees in the first and the second trust deeds he was omitted from the list of 12 trustees mentioned in the last trust deed dated 28-10-1963. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 31-3-75 rejected the claim of the present writ petitioner to be the hereditary trustee. Sec. 77 of the above Act gives such powers of decision to the Deputy Commissioner. The above statute provides a remedy against such a decision of the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, the present writ petitioner filed a suit in O. S. No. 30/76 before the District Court. Machilipatnam under Sec. 78 of the Act. In that suit, which is now pending. the petitioner is claiming to be a hereditary trustee and the decision of the Deputy Commissioner dated 31-3-75 is wrong.

(2.) During the pendency of the above petition filed by the present writ petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner of Kakinada a departmental Executive Officer had been appointed under S. 77 (4) of the above Act to manage the properties of the trust, Since then the Tapovanam institution is being managed by that officer. Now it is said that the immediate provocation for filling this petition is a threat from the Endowment authorities to hand over a portion of the building of the Tapovanam to the Government Ayurvedic College.

(3.) In this writ petition, petitioner raised a basic issue. The writ petitioner now says that the Tapovanam institution is not a charitable institution at all and that therefore the application of the provisions of the aforesaid Act 17 of 1966 to the Tapovanam trust is illegal.