NEMBULA ANJANEYULU Vs. VIGNESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE BHIMAVARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Executive Officer, Sri Vigneswara Swamy Temple, Bhimavaram filed Crl.M.P.No. 226 of 2003 before the Magistrate under Section 133 of A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (the Act) to direct the petitioner to deliver possession of the records, accounts and properties of the temple to him. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in the said Crl.M.P.No. 226 Of 2003.

(2.) By the notification of R.C.No. J3/ 19299/2000 dated 02-11-2000 the Commissioner of Endowments notified Sri Vigneswara Swamy Temple, situated near Sri Mavullamma Ammavari Temple as a religious institution under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act and consequently issued a notice dated 20-02-2001 to the petitioner in R.C.No. A2/3418/2000 to file an application for registration under Section 43 of the Act etc. Thereafter, by the proceedings in R.C.No. G1/54464/01 dated 07-11-2001 the Commissioner appointed an Executive Officer to the said Sri Vigneswara Swamy Temple. Since the petitioner did not hand over charge and records etc., as ex office holder to his successor, the Executive Officer appointed by the Commissioner filed O.A.No. 56/2002 before the Deputy Commissioner to issue a certificate under Section 133(2)(b) of the Act, who after issuing notice to the petitioner and after having heard both sides, granted a certificate under Section 133(2)(b) of the Act to the Executive Officer. Questioning the said order petitioner filed W.P.No. 1675/ 2003 before this Court which was dismissed by a learned single Judge, by the order dated 29-01-2003, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner to the Commissioner under Section 92(1) of the Act. Petitioner seems to have filed an appeal before the Commissioner. In the meanwhile, the Executive Officer filed Crl.M.P.No. 226 of 2003 before the Magistrate to enforce the order of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 133(2)(b) of the Act. Hence, this petition by the petitioner.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since as per Section 133(2)(b) of the Act the application to the Magistrate has to be accompanied by a certificate issued by the 'Commissioner' receive the order so sent, Rule 3 of the Rules enables the order being affixed on the outer door, or at any conspicuous place of his residence and such affixture shall be deemed to be sufficient service of notice to him. The certificate referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 133 of the Act, as per Rule 4 of the Rules, shall be in the Form appended to the Rules. As per Rule 6 of the Rules the authority who inquired in the matter has to sign the certificate by duly affixing his official seal thereon.