S VANKATESWARLU Vs. S VENKATESWARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the Writ Petition and the Criminal Revision case was the managing trustee of Sri Kodanda Ramaswamy. Temple at Avulavaripalem. Tenali Taluk, Guntur District. The Temple is an excepted, temple having five hereditary trustees one of whom is the petitioner. In a election held between the five hereditary trustee, the petitioner was elected as managing trustee on 8/12/1961 and he was functioning as such. The 1st respondent in the writ petition is the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., (Admn) Department, Vijayawada. By his memo No. A2/5119/63 (Admn) dtd.: 6/3/1964. the 1st respondent asked the petitioner to produce the accounts of the temple on or before 19/3/1964 at his office at Vijayawada. It is alleged in the affidavit tiled in support of the writ petition that the petitioner was, at the time engaged in attending to the grading and packing or tobacco and that he bad sent a reply on 14/3/1964 by registered post to the 1st respondent stating that his work would be over by the end of April, 1964 and requesting that a date might be fixed in the month of May for the production of the accounts of the temple. In that letter, the petitioner also stated that he was not aware of any prior communication addressed to him. But the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Admn) Department. (1st respondent), by his order dated 20- 3-1964 framed the following charges against the petitioner.

(2.) By the same order, the Deputy Commissioner stated that he felt that it was not safe to keep Sri Sammata Venkateswarlu (the petitioner) in office any longer and that, in those circumstances ha was constrained to place the petitioner, the managing trustee, under suspension pending enquiry into the charges framed against him. The petitioner was requested to hand over charge of the accounts, records and other properties and articles of the Devasthanam to Sri S. Venkateswarlu, Executive Officer of Temple at Donepudi who by the same order was appointed as the fit person under Sec. 45(3) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act in the place of the suspended managing trustee: Sri. S. Venkateswarlu, the fit person, was requested to take charge from the petitioner the managing trustee. The order further directed that in case the petitioner evaded to hand over charge within ten days from the date of receipt of the order by him, the fit person Sri S. Venkateswarlu was to advance the necessary money and initiate proceedings against the petitioner under Sec. 87 of the Act before the First Class Magistrate, Tenali for recovery of possession of all the accounts, records and registers of the temple. The order further directed the petitioner to state why he should not be dismissed for his wilful neglect and disobedience of lawful orders and the petitioner was asked to send his explanation before 20/4/1964. It was further stated in the order that the petitioner's explanation to the charges would be considered by the Deputy Commissioner at his office at Suryaraepet on 25/4/1964 and that, if no explanation was received from the petitioner, it-would be considered that he had no explanation to offer and that further steps would be taken to dismiss him from the office. The petitioner was also informed that the question of vacating the suspension order made against him would be considered on 25/4/1964, in case the petitioner handed over charge of all the accounts and the records of the temple to the fit person and in case the petitioner produced the accounts and records for inspection in the Deputy Commissioner's office before the date of Enquiry i.e., 25/4/1964. S. Venkateswarlu who was appointed as the fit person, is the 2nd respondent in the writ petition. He filed M.P. No. 70/64 in the Court of the Additional Munsif-Magistrate. Tenali under Sec. 87 of the Act for directing the respondent-therein i.e., the petitioner in the Writ Petition and the Criminal Revision Case before us to deliver possession of the temple records to him and for such other orders as are deemed fit and proper. That application under Sec. 87 of the Act was opposed by the petitioner on various grounds. It was contended that the fit person had no right either to assume management of the temple or to apply under Sec. 87 of the Act, Since all the five trustees of the temple are hereditary trustees, the petitioner in M.P. No. 70/64 could not be appointed as a fit parsons as he is not a hereditary trustee. By order dtd. 22/4/1965, the Additional Muusiff-Magistrate, Tenali over-ruled the objections of the managing hereditary trustee and he was directed to hand over the records to the temple to the fit person. Criminal Revision Case No. 331 of 1965 was filed against the said order. When the Criminal Revision Case came up for final hearing before our learned brother, Mohamad Mirza J. it appears to have been contended before him on behalf of the respondent (the fit person) that it was not open to the petitioner in a proceeding under Sec. 87 of the Act to question the validity of the order of suspension. The learned Judge, by his order dtd. 24/8/1965, directed the Criminal Revision, Case to be posted before a Bench since there is no direct ruling on that point. Writ Petition No. 2037/65 was filed by the managing heredity trustee Sammeta Venkateswarlu, in December, 1965 when the Criminal Revision Case was heard in, part by, us, we were, told that the writ petition also was pending against the order in O.A. No. 62/64 dtd. 20/3/64, of the Dy. Commissioner framing charges against the petitioner and suspending him pending enquiry and appointing S. Venkateswarlu as the fit person. So, we directed the Writ Petition also to be posted and we heard both the Writ Petition and the Criminal Revision Case together.

(3.) Mr. Kanyaka Prasad, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, argued three points before us: