SUBASH NEEMKAR Vs. REGIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M. Vidyasagar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, Sri E. Ayyapu Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V. Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned Counsel for the 4th respondent and Sri K. Ravi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent and at their request the writ petition was taken up for final hearing.

(2.) The present writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the 1st respondent in R.P.No.1024 of 2004 dated 5.10.2004, upholding the order of the 2nd respondent in I.A.No.79/04 in O.A.No.21/04, dated 18.08.2004, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and for a direction to quash both the orders. facts, to the extent necessary for this writ petition, are that petitioners 1 to 6 claim to be the founder trustees of the subject institution - a Hanuman Temple constructed in the year 1984. The said institution, said to have several other temples, was classified under Section 6(c) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, (Act 30 of 1987), an order which the petitioners contend to have been erroneously passed without putting them on notice. The petitioners filed W.P.No.3071/04 which was disposed of, by order dated 01.04.2004, leaving it open for them to raise a dispute, under Section 87 of Act 30 of 1987, before the Deputy Commissioner for Endowments, (2nd respondent herein). The petitioners filed O.A.No.21/04, before the 2nd respondent, seeking a declaration that the subject institution did not attract the provisions of Act 30 of 1987 and did not partake the character of a public religious institution. It is the petitioners' case that in view of the dispute raised by them, no steps were taken to register the institution and that the dispute raised by them is still pending before the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner awaiting the remarks of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments. While matters stood thus, the 4th respondent - association filed two interlocutory applications, in O.A. 21 of 2004, before the Deputy Commissioner, the first one requesting that they be impleaded as necessary and proper parties in O.A.21/04 and the second to appoint an officer of the department to manage the affairs of the temple pending the O.A. Copies of both the interlocutory applications, filed on 18.8.2004, were served on the counsel for the petitioners only on 18.08.2004, and on the same day at 2.30 P.M. the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner allowed the interlocutory application in I.A.79/04 in O.A.21/04 and in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 87(2) of Act 30 of 1987, appointed the 5th respondent Executive Officer of Sri Hanuman Temple, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad as the Custodian of the Hanuman Temple, Near Allwyn Factory, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad with immediate effect pending disposal of O.A.21/04. The custodian was directed to take over complete charge of the records, accounts and properties of the temple from the petitioners herein and to ensure that the day to day affairs of the temple were administered properly without giving scope for complaints from any quarter. The petitioners were directed to hand over forthwith charge of the records, amounts and properties of the temple, to the custodian. Against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, in I.A.79/04 in O.A.21/04 dated 18.08.2004, the petitioners preferred a revision, under Section 92, to the Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments who, at the admission stage, granted status quo as on 23.8.2004. The revision petition was subsequently heard and dismissed, by order dated 5.10.2004, on the ground that the 5th respondent had assumed charge of office on 23.8.2004 prior to the status quo order being issued and it was therefore not necessary to continue the order of status quo.

(3.) A Counter affidavit is filed, on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Secunderabad wherein it is stated that the subject temple was published under Section 6(c)(ii) of Act 30/87 and is a public religious institution permitting access to the general public and devotees. The petitioners' contention that they were the founder trustees is denied and it is contended that no such recognition was obtained from the competent authority of the department and that the self-styled committee, registered under the Societies Registration Act, had no legal sanctity. Reference is made to Section 87(2) to contend that the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to pass orders, as he deems fit, for effective administration of the property and custody of the money belonging to the institution and that the 5th respondent was appointed as a custodian to safeguard the properties and income of the temple. It is stated that, as stipulated under Section 1(3)(b) of Act 30/87, the Act applies to all Hindu Public Religious institutions, whether registered or not.