V RAMAJOGESWARA RAO Vs. SOMESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is said to be member of founder's family of Sri Someswara Swamy Temple at Sajjapuram, Tanuku, West Godavari District, seeks quashing of the orders dated 2-11-2001 in C. R. P. No. 55 of 1999 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, confirming the orders dated 22-6-1999 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 6 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku. Suffice it to say that on the strength of the certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments under S. 133 of A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act No. 30 of 1987), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, entertained Crl. M. P. No. 6 of 1999 and issued notice to the petitioner and subsequently it was ordered. Against the said order, a revision in C. R. P. No. 55 of 1999 was preferred before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Eluru. The said revision was dismissed without mentioning any reasons. Subsequently, the matter was carried before this court in Crl. P. No. 3107 of 2000 and the same was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the revisional court. The revisional court once again confirmed the order of the lower court. Aggrieved by the same, this criminal petition is filed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly assails the order on two grounds. Firstly, he contends that the Commissioner of Endowments has not issued a certificate as contemplated under S. 133 of A. P. C. and H. R. I. and Endowment Act 30 of 87 and hence the certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments is not valid and unenforceable. The second contention canvassed is that the term of the Executive Officer has expired on the constitution of the Trust Board and he has no jurisdiction to move in the matter. Reliance is also placed on the strength of the orders passed by the Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments, Multi Zone-I, recognizing the petitioner as member of the founder's family.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent contends that it is not a case where inherent powers can be exercised to quash the proceedings and it is a case where records are not handed over. He also tries to rely on the subsequent orders passed by the Government setting aside the orders passed by the Regional Joint Commissioner.