GUNDALA SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.C. Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri S. Syam Sunder Rao, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The petitioner claims to be belonging to Gundala family, who for generations were the hereditary trustees of Sri Singarutla Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Petasannigandla, Karampudi Mandal, Guntur district with the petitioner's great grand father being declared as hereditary trustee in O.S. No. 88 of 1914. As per the scheme decree in O.S. No. 1 of 1931, the father of the petitioner was recognized as the hereditary trustee by the Assistant Commissioner in proceedings, dated 10-12-1969 and on the death of the petitioner's father, the 2nd respondent recognized the petitioner to be the hereditary trustee, who was administered oath of secrecy by the Inspector, Endowments on 10-02-1995. After intervention of the abolition of hereditary rights and recognition of the hereditary trustee to be deemed as a founder trustee, the petitioner submitted an application for nominating him as the Chairman of the trust board in tune with Section 20(1)(b) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions & Endowments Act, 1987, A.P. Act 30 of 1987(for short "the Act"). A legal notice was also issued to the Commissioner of Endowments on 05-01-2012. But the 2nd respondent, who appointed seven persons as trustees earlier by proceedings, dated 31-01-2007, after obtaining his opinion in consonance with Section 17(1) of A.P. Act 30 of 1987, did not renew the trusteeship of the said persons after expiry of the period of office of two years in spite of the recommendation of a local Legislator. While so, the 1st respondent in his notice, dated 16-12-2011 desired applications from interested persons as per Section 17(3) of the Act and fulfilling the requirements specified to enable appointment of a new trust board within 20 days. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said notification alleging the same to be not in tune with Section 17(1) of the Act. As a founder trustee, he must be consulted and his opinion must be sought on all aspects pertaining to the appointment of trustees to the temple board. The petitioner, therefore, desired the absence of seeking petitioner's consent to be recognized as leading to vitiation of the impugned notification and also sought for an interim suspension of the notification before it is so declared.

(2.) The implead petitioner in his affidavits claimed to have made an application for trusteeship on 30-12-2011 to the 1st respondent in pursuance of the impugned notification, which was stalled due to the interim directions of this Court. In his elaborate submissions, the implead petitioner ultimately stated that the petitioner is no more the founder trustee of the temple and obtaining his prior opinion or having prior consultation with him cannot be considered required by Section 17(1) read with Section 20 of A.P. Act 30 of 1987, as the petitioner did not approach the Endowments Tribunal after incorporation of the amendments by A.P. Act 27 of 2002. The petitioner has no cause of action according to the implead petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner filed some more documents, one of which is an application submitted by the petitioner in Form-II to the Commissioner, Endowments requesting for nomination as Chairman to the board of trustees, as he must be deemed to be the founder trustee of the temple. The learned counsel for the petitioner also appeared to have issued a legal notice to the same effect to the Commissioner of Endowments on 05-01-2012 and the petitioner also filed a detailed counter-affidavit in the implead petition.