T VENKATA RATNAM Vs. COMMISSIONER ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT VIJAYAWADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Deputy Commissioner, Endowment Department, Vijayawada, Krishna district, respondent No.1 herein issued notice in O.A. 1/87 on 6-6-1987 to the petitioner No.1 under Section 77 (1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (for short the old Act) calling upon him to be present on June 15, 1987 as a dispute has arisen with regard to the question whether Sri Pandurangaswamy temple, Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam is a public or private temple. The petitioners herein and some others filed a reply to the said notice raising the question with regard to the jurisdiction of the first respondent to undertake the enquiry. Later on they also filed I.A.No. 36/87 in OANo. 1/87 to determine the question of jurisdiction of the first respondent. By order dated 20th July 1987 the first respondent held that the Deputy Commissioner had got jurisdiction to decide the question involved in the case. Thereafter the first respondent passed interim order appointing a person as Custodian of the said temple. Questioning the jurisdiction of the first respondent to undertake the suo motu enquiry into the question as to whether the said temple is a private temple" or a public temple the petitioners filed this writ petition praying for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the proceedings relating to the passing of the order dated July 20th, 1987.

(2.) The contention of the petitioners is that the said temple has been declared to be a private temple as long back as in 1940 in O.P.No. 1 of 1940 on the file of the District Judge, Krishna by judgment dated October 24, 1941.

(3.) Respondent No.1 filed counter- affidavit inter alia stating that even during the life time of Bhakta Narasimham the temple was thrown open to public in the year 1955 where Vithala Nama Japa Yagnam had been performed for 108 days. Several donations were received from the public and every year Kartika Brahmotsavam was performed inviting public to participate and contribute funds to the temple. It is admitted that in O.P. 1 of 1940 on the file of the District Judge, Krishna, the Court held that the temple was a private temple but it is also stated that the said temple in the course of time was converted into a public temple. As the temple has become a public temple. Section 77 of the old Act is attracted and hence the Deputy Commissioner has got jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry. The Assistant Commissioner, it is stated, had submitted his report to the effect that it is a public temple and accordingly the Deputy Commissioner had initiated enquiry. It is also stated that in R. P. 168 of 1977 the Joint Commissioner had passed order that the Assistant Commissioner was at liberty to move the Deputy Commissioner under Section 77 of the Act. It is also stated that the enquiry in O.A.No.1 of 1977 was limited only to the question with regard to the nature of the institution. In the circumstances, it is prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed.