P RAJALINGAM Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge by the appellant is to the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No.1132 of 2005 on 31st January, 2005.

(2.) Facts in brief are that appellant- petitioner has filed O.A. No.1 of 1986 under Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") before the 1st respondent- Deputy Commissioner of Endowments seeking declaration that property in question does not belong to Tulja Bhavani Temple and it is his personal property. After making necessary enquiries and hearing the parties, the 1st respondent passed an order on 26.4.2000. As per the provisions of Section 87 of the Act, any decision or order of Deputy Commissioner on confirmation by the Commissioner is required to be published in the prescribed manner and am decision or order of Deputy Commissioner deciding whether an institution or endowmen is not a public institution or endowmeni as per sub-section (5) of Section 87, shal, not take effect unless such decision or order is con finned by an order of the Commissioner. The Commissioner in his tun on 25.11.2004 passed an order saying that the judgment in O.A. No.l of 1986 passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 26.4.2000 is rejected. This order was communicated to the appellant through covering letter of Deputy Commissioner on 27.12.2004, Appellant, thereafter intended to prefer appeal and thus required copy of the said order in O.A. No.l of 1986, dated 26.4.2000 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments which was not supplied and thus preferred writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of Respondent No.l in not issuing copy of the order passed on 26.4.2000 in O.A. No.l of 1986 as illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that when the Commissioner refuses to confirm the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the decision taken or order passed by the Deputy Commissioner ceases to have am adjudicatory effect. At the most, it remains a tenatative opinion, not finding favour of the Commissioner. Therefore, no rights 29 such can be said to have accrued to the appellant on the strength of such tenatative opinion. Such decision or order can never constitute subject-matter of an appeal and that being the case, no party to the proceedings can have a right to insist for furnishing copies of the same. The wri petition was dismissed saying that the 2nd respondent cannot be insisted for furnishing copy of the decision or orde submitted by him to the 1st respondent, refusing to confirm it.