ERANKI VENKATA SUBRAHMANYAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Eranki Venkata Subrahmanyam, petitioner in this application for the issue of a writ, applied to the Government to be appointed as one of the trustees of Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayanaswamy Devasthanam, Annavaram. There were altogether 24 applicants before the Government. The Government made enquiries regarding the antecedents of the several applicants through the Commissioner of Endowments. Thereafter by an order, dated 23rd July, 1971, the Government appointed seven persons as trustees of the Devasthanam for a period of three years. The petitioner was informed that he was not selected for appointment as trustee. The petitioner has no grievance against the appointment of six of the trustees. He is aggrieved with the appointment of one of the seven trustees, namely, Bandaru Venkata Appa Rao whom he has impleaded as the 3rd respondent in this writ petition. According to him the 3rd respondent is not a person worthy of being appointed as trustee of the Devasthanam. He himself is much better equipped to function as a trustee than the 3rd respondent. He has, therefore, filed the present application for the issue of a writ questioning the appointment of the 3rd respondent as a trustee.

(2.) The only ground argued before me was that the order of the Government was not a speaking order, in that it did not give the reasons for selecting the persons appointed by it or discuss the claims of the rival applicants for appointment. It was said that the power exercised by the Government under section 15 of Act (XVII of 1966) was a quasi-judicial power and the Government was bound to state its reasons for its order. Reliance was placed on the following observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Nalam Ramalingaiah v. Commissioner of Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments : " The order must therefore be a speaking order amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution, and the proceedings fair and just. The functionaries under the Act no doubt occupy in this regard the role of administrative tribunals but they are bound to act quasi-judicially. They are vested with a duty to act fairly and judicially in considering the claims and appointing non-hereditary trustees. They should apply their mind not only to the need of appointment but also the right type of persons. Their orders must not only contain the reasons but the reasoning and conclusion should be based on relevant facts and not extraneous considerations." Sri R. Venugopal Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents argued that the observations of the Bench were mere obiter dicta. He submitted that it would be well nigh impossible for the authorities functioning under the Act to give detailed reasons for the selection of persons for appointment as trustees. Applicants were invariably numerous and it would be too much to expect the authorities to pass detailed orders considering the claims of all the rival applicants. In the instant case the Government had stated that the persons mentioned in the order were chosen for appointment as trustees having regard to their religious bent of mind and the active interest taken by them in the affairs of the temples. That was enough, urged Mr. Venugopal Reddy.

(3.) Section 15 of Act XVII of 1966, under which appointments of non-hereditary trustees are made, does not prescribe that reasons should be stated for the appointments made by the authorities. The power of appointment is a purely administrative function and cannot be equated to a judicial or quasi-judicial function. It is true that appointments of trustees, like appointments to posts under the State, should be made properly and regularly bearing in mind the prescribed qualifications and other relevant considerations and should not be actuated by improper motives. But that is not to say that the order of appointment should state reasons for the appointment. The position is the same whether the appointment is to be made to a post under the State or to the office of the trustee of an institution. We do not expect or require the Government or the Public Service Commission to state reasons for selecting a person for appointment from among several candidates. I see no reason why we should expect or require the Government to state its reasons for selecting a person for appointment as trustee from among several rival applicants. To require an appointing authority whether it be to the office of a trustee of an institution or to a post under the State to state its reasons and to discuss the claims of the rival applicants would be to place a difficult and unnecessary, and too high a burden on the appointing authority.