VEDANTHAM RAMBABU Vs. PRL. SECY REVENUEENDOWMENTS DEPT. HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is working as an Archaka in Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple, Vemagiri, by virtue of inheritance was appointed as single trustee to manage the affairs of the temple as per the provisions of the Endowment Act. The commissioner has issued the proceedings under 4th proviso to Sec. 15 (2) of the Endowment Act, as the income of the temple is below Rs.2.00 lakhs under the Act appointing the Petitioner as single trustee to manage the affairs of the aforesaid temple in terms of the provisions of the act and the rules made under and was asked to take the charge of the accounts, records, valuables from Sri P. Adinarayana and submitted a report along with his specimen signatures to accord and restrict operation of Bank Accounts. The Petitioner was held responsible for the proper administration of the temple and liable for any lapses. Accordingly, the Petitioner has submitted budget estimates from the year 2009 onwards and the same was approved by the competent authority without any allegations of mismanagement or another manner. In pursuance of managing the affairs of the institution, the Petitioner has issued the notice to the existing tenants on 23/04/2015 to vacate the land of Ac. 3.84 Cents in Sv. No. 275 which is owned by the temple as the lease period expired, in view of the circular instruction issued by the Joint Commissioner, dtd. 11/03/2015, and conduct a public action for the benefit of the institution.

(3.) While the matter stood thus, some of the tenants challenged this notice approaching the Hon'ble Court by way of filing W.P No.14145/2014, W.P No.14171/2015, W.P.No.18840/2015, W.P.No.1415/2015 on various grounds for demanding them to vacate and handover the vacant land to enable the institution to conduct public the action to the benefit of institution. Petitioner believes that these tenants complained against alleging that he failed to discharge his duties which led to the issuance of impugned proceedings No.B4/9499/2014, dt: 25/08/2015 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada-3rd respondent, without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any notice. It is submitted that the Petitioner was neither provided the copy of such allegations nor given an opportunity to submit an explanation, was asked to handover the charge for better management to the P.T.V.Satyanarayana Murthy, Executive Officer, Sri Chanda Choultry, Rajamahendravaram-5th respondent without stating the reasons for such handing over of the charge. Hence thepresent writ petition came to be filed.