PEDDI SAMBAIAH Vs. PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A scheme framed in the year 1956 under section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code in O. S. No. 9 of 1953 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Gunture for a charitable institution called Peddivani Tank", situate at Uppalapadu Village Guntur Taluk, provided for the appointment of two non-hereditary trustees for a term of five years by the learned Subordinate Judge, Guntur. This is in addition to the three hereditary trustees. All these years the scheme has been in force and in operation; Now currently the learned Subordinate Jadge had called for applications for filing the posts of two vacancies in the office of non-hereditary trustees. In response thereto, certain persons had applied to be appointed as non-hereditary trustees, making the choice of some and rejection of others inevitable. In I. A. No. 303i of 1980 in O. S No. 9 of 1958 the learned Subordinate Judge had appointed respondents 2 and 3 herein viz., Pothineni Sambasivarao and Peddi Satyauarayana, as non hereditary trustees. This writ petition has been filed challenging that order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Guntur.

(2.) THE applicant before me is the person who filed the scheme suit O. S. No. 9 of 1953 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur. Obviously, he is the person whose interest in the management of the suit charitable institution is well above the ordinary. THE trustees manage about Ac. 20 00 of wet land in addition to a fairly big tank spread over to 12 acres. THE petitioner is not therefore without legitimate interest in the good management of the Trust. It is not denied that under the above scheme framed in O. S. No. 9 of 1953 it was provided that non-hereditary trustees should be appointed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Guntur; nor is it suggested before me that the appointments made by the learned Subordinate Judge were impeachable on their own merits. THE entire argument of the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner is tut the learned Subordinate Judge in calling for the applications and appointing respondents 2 and 3 as non-hereditary trustees, had acted without jurisdiction. Want of jurisdiction is the staple dict of a writ argument and requires serious consideration of writ Court. It is argued that by reason of Chapter III of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (hereinafter called as "the Act") the matter of appointments of trustees is provided for by section 15 of the Act and that thereafter notwithstanding the fact that a scheme had been prepared and approved by the Court under section 92 of the Civil Procedure providing for the appointment of trustees by the learned Subordinate Judge, the appropriate departmental authorities mentioned in Chapter III of the Act alone should appoint the trustees. In support of the argument advanced by Mr. Narayanarao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and strongly supported by Mr, Suryanarayana Murthy, the learned Counsel for the Department, reliance has been placed upon the language of section 36 of the Act. Section 36, Clause (1) of the Act reads thus :-