WP/29264/2014 of R.Subramanyam, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 December 2014

*[IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR]THE STATE OF TELANGANAANDTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICESRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

+WRIT PETITION Nos.29189, 29264, 29317, 29453, 29455, 29474, 29475, 29499, 29556, 30168,30674, 30688, 30692, 31352, 31445,31551, 31640, 31652, 31677,31692, 32020, 32246,32255, 32578 and32584 of 2014

%DATED________DECEMBER, 2014

W.P. No.29189 of 2014:

S. Timmaiah … Petitioner Vs.$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others … Respondents W.P. No.29264 of 2014:

R. Subrahmanyam … Petitioner Vs.

$ The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others … Respondents W.P. No.29317 of 2014:

Mekala Anjinaiah … Petitioner Vs.$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others … Respondents W.P. No.29453 of 2014:

Putty Sastry … Petitioner

Vs.$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others … RespondentsW.P. No.29455 of 2014:# Ala Srinivasarao … Petitioner Vs.$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others … RespondentsW.P. No.29474 of 2014:# Karanam Sambasiva Rao and others … Petitioners Vs.$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others … RespondentsW.P. No.29475 of 2014:# Ramineni Jayalakshmi and others … Petitioners Vs.$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others … RespondentsW.P. No.29499 of 2014:# Sri Vallamreddy Ramana Reddy and others … Petitioners Vs.$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others … RespondentsW.P. No.29556 of 2014:# Dondapati Brahmaiah … Petitioner Vs.$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others … RespondentsW.P. No.30168 of 2014:# Smt. R. Latha … Petitioner Vs.

$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments) Department, rep. by its Principal Secretary and others … RespondentsW.P. No.30674 of 2014:# Maddala Prasad and others … Petitioners Vs.$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Revenue (Endowments-I) Department and others … RespondentsW.P. No.30688 of 2014:# Rachabhathuni Laxminarsu and others … Petitioners Vs.$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Revenue (Endowments-I) Department and others … RespondentsW.P. No.30692 of 2014:# Pavuluri Subba Rao and others … Petitioners Vs.$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Revenue (Endowments-I) Department and others … RespondentsW.P. No.31352 of 2014:# Dulam Manikyam … Petitioner Vs.$ The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others … RespondentsW.P. No.31445 of 2014:# Smt. Bodapati Sreeneela Devi … Petitioner Vs.$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others … RespondentsW.P. No.31551 of 2014:# Smt. Mekala Aruna Devi … Petitioner Vs.$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others … RespondentsW.P. No.31640 of 2014:# Tanadhara Nagaraju … Petitioner Vs.$ State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, rep. by its Principal Secretary and others … RespondentsW.P. No.31652 of 2014:# Pathangi Guru Prasad and others … Petitioners Vs.$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments) Department rep. by its Principal Secretary and others … RespondentsW.P. No.31677 of 2014:# Sri Chennu Thirupal Reddy and others … Petitioners Vs.$ State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department and others … RespondentsW.P. No.31692 of 2014:# Sri A. Chandra Sekhara Reddy and others … Petitioners Vs.$ State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department and others … RespondentsW.P. No.32020 of 2014:# Yisanaka Harshavardha Reddy and others … Petitioners Vs.$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary and others … RespondentsW.P. No.32246 of 2014:# S. Ramana Reddy and another … Petitioners Vs.$ State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) and others … Respondents W.P. No.32255 of 2014:

L. Manohar Reddy … Petitioner Vs.$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department and others … RespondentsW.P. No.32578 of 2014:# Shri. V. Rammohan Reddy … Petitioner Vs.$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department rep. by its Principal Secretary and others … RespondentsW.P. No.32584 of 2014:# Kadambari Suryanarayana Murthy and others … Petitioners Vs.$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department and others … Respondents <Gist:

>Head Note:

! Counsel for petitioners : Sri R. Raghunandan Rao, senior counsel

^ Counsel for respondents : Learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh ? CASES REFERRED:

1.1967(2) SCR 214 = AIR 1967 SC 1305

2. AIR 1955 SC 191

3. (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 1

4. (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 623

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICESRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA ANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT PETITION Nos.29189, 29264, 29317, 29453,29455, 29474, 29475, 29499, 29556, 30168,30674, 30688, 30692, 31352, 31445,31551, 31640, 31652, 31677,31692, 32020, 32246,32255, 32578 and32584 of 2014

COMMON ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)

The petitioners in this batch of cases were appointed asChairpersons and/or Trustees on the Boards of various temples in theerstwhile combined State of Andhra Pradesh. Such appointment waseffected under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable andHindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity, ‘theAct of 1987’). Their common grievance in these cases is with theAndhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions andEndowments (Amendment) Act, 2014 (Act No.8 of 2014), enacted by thebifurcated new State of Andhra Pradesh, in so far as it introducedSection 163 in the Act of 1987. This provision is assailed on the groundthat it is illegal, arbitrary and a colourable exercise of power, contrary tothe provisions of the Constitution and the Act of 1987.

By way of Act No.8 of 2014, the new State of Andhra Pradesheffected certain changes in Sections 15 and 96 of the Act of 1987 andintroduced Section 163 therein. The grievance canvassed presently isas regards this new provision. Section 163 reads as under:

“163. Notwithstanding anything contained in the PrincipalAct, all the Chairpersons and Members of the Trust Boards of allInstitutions including TTDs holding office at the commencementof the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu ReligiousInstitutions and Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2014 shall ceaseto hold office forthwith and thereupon it shall be competent for theGovernment to appoint a person or persons to exercise thepowers and perform the functions of the Boards of Institutionsincluding TTDs till new Trust Boards are reconstituted andChairman/Members are appointed in accordance with theprovisions of Sections 15 and 96 of the Principal Act as amendedby this Act.”

Given the multiplicity of pleadings, it would suffice to refer to theaffidavit filed in support of Writ Petition No.29264 of 2014, whichcomprehensively covers the gamut of the grounds of challenge urged bythe petitioners against the impugned provision. The petitioner in thiswrit petition was appointed Chairman of the Trust Board of SriVeerabhadra Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Lepakshi Village and Mandal,Hindupur Taluk, Ananthapur District. His appointment as a Trustee tookplace in December, 2013 and he was elected Chairman of the Board

thereafter. His term as a member of the Trust Board is till December,2015 as per Section 17(2) of the Act of 1987. Sri Veerabhadra SwamyVari Devasthanam, Lepakshi, is a temple classified under Section 6(b)(ii) of the Act of 1987. The Commissioner of Endowments is thereforethe competent authority to constitute its Board of Trustees as perSection 15 of the Act of 1987. The petitioner’s appointment wasaccordingly effected by the Commissioner of Endowments of theerstwhile combined State of Andhra Pradesh. While so, by way of theimpugned amendment and introduction of Section 163 in the Act of1987, the present State of Andhra Pradesh decreed that theChairpersons and members of all the Trust Boards of all templesholding office at the commencement of Act No.8 of 2014 shall cease tohold office forthwith and thereupon, it shall be competent for theGovernment of the present State of Andhra Pradesh to reconstitute newTrust Boards and until such time, to appoint a person or persons toexercise the powers and perform the functions of such Boards. Thepetitioner challenges this legislative action on the ground that there wasno justification for terminating the Trust Boards constituted as per theprovisions of the Act of 1987 whereby a statutory right vested in thoseappointed to continue in office, as per Section 17 of the Act of 1987, fora term of two years unless removed as per the procedure prescribedunder Section 28 thereof.

The newly introduced Section 163, which has overriding effect inview of the non obstante clause, is stated to be a colourable exercise ofpower as it has the effect of terminating all existing Trust Boardsindiscriminately without reference to Sections 17 and 28 of the Act of1987. The petitioner contends that no reference was made to the objectsought to be achieved, either in the interest of the temples or thedevotees thereof, by introduction of the impugned provision in thestatute. The petitioner alleges that the same is a misuse of legislativepower and is intended to gain political ends owing to the change in thepolitical scenario. The petitioner also attacks the motive in increasingthe number of Trustees in each Board. He further contends that even if such amendment is to be effected, it could be done only prospectivelyand could not be applied with retrospective effect so as to terminate theexisting Trust Boards without just cause. He alleges that the subjectexercise amounts to naked discrimination as persons suited to theinterests of the members of the present ruling party are sought to beaccommodated by removing the existing Trust Board members. Thepetitioner further alleges that the Amendment Act amounts tointerference in the administration of the temples and is violative ofArticles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The petitioner asserts that theimpugned provision retrospectively cuts short the statutory right whichvested in the petitioner under Section 17 of the Act of 1987 and unless itsurvives the test envisaged by Article 13(2) of the Constitution, it has tobe declared as illegal and unconstitutional.

The impugned provision is also challenged on the ground that itcreates two classes of Trust Board members – those appointed prior tothe impugned amendment and those appointed thereafter. Thepetitioner points out that by virtue of Section 163, those appointed priorto the amendment are denied the protection of Section 28 of the Act of1987, which prescribes the procedure for cutting short the statutory termof a Trust Board member, while those appointed thereafter wouldcontinue to enjoy such statutory protection. This denial of statutoryprotection to one class of Trust Board members is stated to be arbitraryand violative of Article 14. The petitioner alleges that there is nointelligible differentia between the two classes and the distinctionsought to be effected between them without rationale offends theconstitutional scheme, which requires reasonable and equal treatmentof all by the State.

Reiterating the thrust of the aforementioned pleadings, Sri R.Raghunandan Rao, learned senior counsel who led arguments onbehalf of the petitioners in the batch, contends that the scheme of theAct of 1987 substantially remained unchanged despite the limitedamendments effected under Act No.8 of 2014. He points out that theappointing authorities remained the same for different classes oftemples under Section 6 of the Act of 1987 and that by way of the amendments effected to Section 15 of the Act of 1987, only the numberof Trustees was enhanced. He asserts that in this situation, it was not atall necessary to remove the existing members of the Trust Boards as allthat was required was to supplement the existing members byappointing new members to satisfy the enhanced numbers. Hereiterates that creation of two classes of Trust Board members underSection 163 results in discrimination between identically situatedclasses without there being any intelligible differentia. He furthercontends that the vested right of tenure under Section 17 of the Act of1987 was sought to be taken away by way of the retrospective operationof Section 163, which was given overriding effect. He would concludeby asserting that Section 163 cannot withstand constitutional and legalscrutiny and is therefore liable to be struck down being a colourableexercise of legislative power.

Counter-affidavits having been filed in most of the cases, thelearned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh wouldrecapitulate the contents thereof. It is his argument that the impugnedprovision does not offend any other provision of the statute, viz, the Actof 1987, or any Constitutional provision. Reference is made to variousprovisions of the Act of 1987 and he states that all that the amendmentdid was to substitute the existing Sub-section (1) of Section 15, wherebytemples were segregated on their annual income. Temples in the newState of Andhra Pradesh with an annual income exceeding Rs.20.00crore are stated to be 7 in number; those with annual income betweenRs.5.00 and Rs.20.00 crore are 6 in number; those with annual incomeranging between Rs.1.00 crore and Rs.5.00 crore are 49; those withannual income ranging from Rs.25.00 lakh to Rs.1.00 crore are 115;those with annual income ranging between Rs.2.00 lakh and Rs.25.00lakh are 1,597; and lastly, temples with less than Rs.2.00 lakh annualincome are 22,060.

The right of all the petitioners to be considered for appointmentafresh as non-hereditary Trustees is stated to be intact and it is pointedout that the amendment did not preclude them from applying again

pursuant to a fresh notification in that regard. The learned AdvocateGeneral states that pursuant to the substitution of Section 15, a freshnotification necessarily has to be issued depending upon the templeincome as otherwise, it would amount to a person being a Trustee of aparticular temple whose income did not fit into any of the categoriesenvisaged under the new Section 15(1) of the Act of 1987. He furtherstates that one can only be a non-hereditary Trustee of a templedepending upon the income of the temple and as this categorization hadundergone a change, fresh constitution of Trust Boards has to takeplace and therefore, Section 163 was inserted to facilitate the same. Hesubmits that it was by a fiction that all the Trustees ceased to hold officeowing to the income criteria and that upon issuance of a new notificationthey could apply and get appointed to the Trust Boards depending uponthe income categorization under the amended Section 15 of the Act of1987.

Reply affidavits having been filed by some of the petitioners in thebatch, they reiterate therein their attack against the impugned provisionand pray for the writ petitions to be allowed. They point out that therewere no allegations against any of the existing Trustees and mereincrease in the number of Trust Board members could not bejustification to penalize them by casting them out of office enmasse. The impugned provision is castigated as a colourable exercise oflegislative power offending the principles of fair play and equalityenshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.

Be it noted that prior to its promulgation, Act No.8 of 2014 waspreceded by Ordinance No.3 of 2014 which was challenged before thisCourt by most of the petitioners in these cases. However, during thependency of those writ petitions, the said Ordinance culminated in ActNo.8 of 2014 and the pending writ petitions were closed leaving it opento the petitioners therein to challenge the subsequent enactment. Hence, these cases.

Being satisfied primafacie that the impugned legislation couldnot be given retrospective operation, this Court passed interim orders inall the cases directing the respondents to maintain statusquo as on the date of passing of such individual orders.

Though raised in the pleadings, the challenge to the increase inthe number of Trustees; the alleged violation of Articles 25 and 26 of theConstitution; and the allegation that the impugned amendment is acolourable exercise, were not pressed by Sri R. RaghunandanRao, learned senior counsel, during his arguments. We are thus notcalled upon to decide these issues, which are accordingly eschewedfrom consideration.

The petitioners’ grievance now before us is solely against thenewly inserted Section 163 in the Act of 1987. It would therefore beapposite to analyze the same in the backdrop of other provisions in the Act of 1987. The relevant provisions are:

Section 6. Preparation and publication of list of charitableand religious institutions and endowments on the basis of income:- The Commissioner shall prepare separately and publish in theprescribed manner, a list of- (a) (i) the charitable institutions and endowments; or

(ii) the religious institutions and endowments other thanmaths;maths; whose annual income as calculated for the purpose oflevy of contribution under Section 65 exceeds rupeestwenty five lakhs;levy of contribution under Section 65 exceeds rupeestwenty five lakhs; (b) (i) the charitable institutions and endowments;

(ii) the religious institutions and endowments, other thanmaths;maths; whose annual income calculated as aforesaid exceeds rupeestwo lakhs but does not exceed rupees twenty five lakhs;two lakhs but does not exceed rupees twenty five lakhs;

(c) (i) the charitable institutions and endowments; or

(ii) the religious institutions and endowments other thanmaths not falling under clause (a) or clause (b);maths not falling under clause (a) or clause (b); (d) the maths irrespective of the income; (e) the Dharmadayam irrespective of the income; Provided that the Commissioner may alter the classificationassigned to an institution or endowment in the list and enter the same inthe appropriate list in case the annual income of such institution orendowment calculated as aforesaid exceeds or falls below the limitsspecified in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) for three consecutiveyears.

Section 15 of the Act of 1987, as it stood prior to its amendment under Act No. 8 of 2014, reads as under:

Section 15. Appointment of Board of Trustees:- In respect of a Charitable or Religious Institution or Endowment,-(1) included in the list published under clause (a) of Section 6,where the income for the Institution exceeds Rupees one crore perannum, the Government shall constitute a Board of Trustees consistingof nine persons appointed by them; where the income of the institution isbetween Rs.25 lakhs to Rupees one crore per annum, the DharmikaParishad shall constitute a Board of Trustees consisting of ninepersons.

(2) Where the income of the institution is between Rs.2.00 lakhsto Rs.25 lakhs per annum, the Commissioner shall appoint a Board ofTrustees consisting of five persons and where the income of theinstitutions is less than Rs.2.00 lakhs per annum, the DeputyCommissioner concerned may constitute a Board of Trustees consistingof three persons in respect of each such temple keeping in view thetraditions, sampradayams and wishes of the devotees:

Provided that the Deputy Commissioner may either in the interestof the institution or endowment or any other sufficient cause or forreasons to be recorded in writing appoint a single trustee instead of aBoard of Trustees:

Provided further that in the case of a religious institution, theArchaka or where there is more than one Archaka, the PradhanaArchaka thereof shall be an ex-officio member of the Trust Boardnotwithstanding clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 19:

Provided also that where the Board of Trustees is not constitutedfor any reason, the recognized founder or Member of the founder'sfamily shall discharge the functions of the Board of trustees till a newBoard of Trustees is constituted:

Provided also that where there is no Executive Officer or FounderFamily member to any institution or where the Government or theauthority competent to constitute a Trust Board has not constituted theTrust Board within the period specified under this sub-section, theCommissioner shall make such arrangement as he deems fit to lookafter the affairs of the institution during the interregnum period betweenthe date of expiry of the terms of the Trust Board and constitution of thenew Trust Board:

Provided also that one of the members of the Board of Trusteesshall be a prominent donor with a long track record of Philanthropy andsupport to Hindu Religious Institutions.

By way of the amendment through Act No. 8 of 2014, the following changes were effected:

In Section 15, -

(i) for sub-section (1), the following shall be substituted, namely,- “(1) Any institution included in the list published under clause (a)of section 6,-

(i) where the income for the institution exceeds Rs.20.00crores (Rupees Twenty Crores) per annum, theGovernment shall constitute a Board of Trusteesconsisting of fifteen (15) persons;crores (Rupees Twenty Crores) per annum, theGovernment shall constitute a Board of Trusteesconsisting of fifteen (15) persons;

(ii) where the income for the institution is between Rs.5.00crores (Rupees Five Crores) to Rs.20.00 crores (RupeesTwenty Crores) per annum, the Government shallconstitute a Board of Trustees consisting of eleven (11)persons;crores (Rupees Five Crores) to Rs.20.00 crores (RupeesTwenty Crores) per annum, the Government shallconstitute a Board of Trustees consisting of eleven (11)persons;

(iii) where the income for the institution is between Rs.1.00crore (Rupees One Crore) to Rs.5.00 crores (Rupees FiveCrores) per annum, the Government shall constitute aBoard of Trustees consisting of nine (9) persons;crore (Rupees One Crore) to Rs.5.00 crores (Rupees FiveCrores) per annum, the Government shall constitute aBoard of Trustees consisting of nine (9) persons;(iv)where the income for the institution is between Rs.25.00lakhs (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) to Rs.1.00 crore(Rupees One Crore) per annum, the Andhra PradeshDharmika Parishad shall constitute a Board of Trusteesconsisting of nine (9) persons.”lakhs (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) to Rs.1.00 crore(Rupees One Crore) per annum, the Andhra PradeshDharmika Parishad shall constitute a Board of Trusteesconsisting of nine (9) persons.”

(ii) in sub-section (2),-

(a) in the opening paragraph, for the words “fivepersons”, the words “seven persons” and for thewords “three persons”, the words “five persons” shallrespectively be substituted;persons”, the words “seven persons” and for thewords “three persons”, the words “five persons” shallrespectively be substituted; (b)for the fifth proviso, the following shall be substituted,namely:-namely:- “provided also that two members of the Board of Trusteesshall be prominent persons with a long track record ofphilanthropy and support to Hindu Religious Institutions.”shall be prominent persons with a long track record ofphilanthropy and support to Hindu Religious Institutions.”

The effect and impact of the changes aforestated shall be dealt with hereinafter.

Other provisions of the Act of 1987, germane for our purpose, are extracted below:

Section 17. Procedure for making appointments of trusteesand their term:-

(1) In making the appointment of trustees under Section 15 theGovernment, the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or theAssistant Commissioner as the case may be, shall have due regard tothe religious denomination or any such section thereof to which theinstitution belongs or the endowment is made and the wishes of thefounder:

Provided that the founder or one of the members of the family ofthe founder, if qualified as prescribed shall be appointed as one of theTrustees.

Explanation I:- 'Founder' means,-

(a) in respect of Institution or Endowment existing at thecommencement of this Act, the person who was recognized asHereditary Trustee under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable andHindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 or aMember of his family recognized by the Competent Authority; (b) In respect of an Institution or Endowment established after such commencement, the person who has founded suchInstitution or Endowment or a member of his family andrecognized as such by the competent authority.

Explanation II:- "Member of the family of the founder" meanschildren, grand children and so in agnatic line of succession for the timebeing in force and declared or recognized as such by the relevantappointing authority.

Explanation III:- Those persons who founded temples bycollecting donations partly or fully from the public as well as those whofounded them on public lands shall not be recognized as foundertrustees by any means.

(2) Every trustee appointed under Section 15 shall hold office fora term of two years from the date of taking oath of office and secrecy.

Provided that every trustee who completed a term of office of oneyear at the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable andHindu Religious Institutions and Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2000shall cease to hold office forthwith and every trustee whose term ofoffice exists after such commencement shall continue to hold office for aperiod of two years from the date of taking oath of office and secrecy.

Explanation:- Where the oath of office and secrecy areadministered on different dates, the period of two years shall bereckoned from the earlier of those dates for the purpose of this sub-section.

(3) The procedure for calling for application for appointment oftrustees, verification of antecedents and other matters shall be such asmay be prescribed.

(4) No person shall be a trustee in more than one Board ofTrustees.

(5) In every Board of Trustees, there shall be at least one womanmember and one member belonging to the Scheduled Castes or theScheduled Tribes whose population is larger in the concerned villageand one member belonging to Backward Classes:

Provided that it shall not be necessary to appoint- (a) a woman member where any person appointed to representthe Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes or the BackwardClasses is a woman; (b) a member of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribeswhere any woman member appointed belongs to the ScheduledCastes or the Scheduled Tribes;

(c) a member of the Backward Classes where any womanmember appointed belongs to the Backward Classes.member appointed belongs to the Backward Classes.

(6) All properties belonging to a charitable or religious institutionor endowment, which on the date of commencement of this Act, are inthe possession or under the superintendence of the Government, ZillaPraja Parishad, Municipality or other local authority or any company,society, organization. Institution or other person or any committee,superintendent or manager appointed by the Government, shall, on thedate on which a Board of Trustees is or is deemed to have beenconstituted or trustee is or is deemed to have been appointed under thissection, stand transferred to such Board of Trustees or trustee thereof,as the case may be and all assets vesting in the Government, local authority or person aforesaid and all liabilities subsisting against suchGovernment, local authority or person on the said date shall, devolve onthe institution or endowment, as the case may be.

Section 28. Suspension, removal or dismissal of trustee:-

(1) The authority competent to appoint a trustee may suspend,remove or dismiss a trustee if he- (a) fails to discharge the duties and perform the functions of atrustee in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rulesmade thereunder:trustee in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rulesmade thereunder:

(b) disobeys any lawful order issued under the provisions of thisAct or the rules made thereunder, by the Government or theCommissioner or the Additional Commissioner, or the RegionalJoint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner or the AssistantCommissioner;Act or the rules made thereunder, by the Government or theCommissioner or the Additional Commissioner, or the RegionalJoint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner or the AssistantCommissioner;

(c) refuses, fails or delays to handover the property and records inhis possession relating to the institution or endowment to hissuccessor or any other person authorized in this behalf;his possession relating to the institution or endowment to hissuccessor or any other person authorized in this behalf; (d) commits any malfeasance or misfeasance or is guilty ofbreach of trust or misappropriation in respect of the properties ofthe institution or endowment;breach of trust or misappropriation in respect of the properties ofthe institution or endowment; (e) becomes subject to any of the disqualifications specified inSection 19; orSection 19; or (f) in the case of a religious institution or endowment, ceases toprofess Hindu religion.profess Hindu religion.

(2) Where it is proposed to take action under sub-section (1), theauthority competent to appoint the trustee shall frame a charge againstthe trustee concerned and give him an opportunity of meeting suchcharge, of testing the evidence adduced against him and of adducingevidence in his favour and the order of suspension, removal ordismissal shall state every charge framed against trustee, hisexplanation and the finding on such charge, together with the reasonstherefor.

(3) Pending disposal of any charge framed against a trustee, theauthority competent to appoint the trustee may suspend the trustee andappoint a fit person to discharge the duties and perform the functions ofthe trustee.

Reconnaissance of the above statutory scheme woulddemonstrate that while appointing Trustees the competent authority isrequired to have due regard to the religious denomination to which thetemple belongs and the wishes of its founder (Section 17). Further, tobe qualified for appointment as a Trustee, the incumbent is to fulfill thequalifications set out in Section 18.

Notably, these provisions were not touched by way of theamendments effected under Act No. 8 of 2014. All that was done thereunder was a change of categorization of temples falling within theambit of Section 6(a) of the Act of 1987. Hitherto, under Section 15(1) ofthe Act of 1987, such temples whose annual income exceededRs.25.00 lakhs but were less than Rs.1.00 crore per annum were setapart from temples whose annual income exceeded Rs.1.00 crore. Bysubstitution of Section 15(1), this division into two categories wasamended, whereby four categories were introduced. The first newcategory is temples with an annual income exceeding Rs.20.00 crore forwhich the Government is the competent authority for appointing a Boardof Trustees consisting of 15 members; the second new category istemples with an annual income between Rs.5.00 crore and Rs.20.00crore for which the Government will constitute a Board of Trusteescomprising 11 members; the third new category is temples with anannual income ranging between Rs.1.00 crore and Rs.5.00 crore andthe Government is competent to constitute a Board of Trustees with 9members and the last new category is temples with an annual incomebetween Rs.25.00 lakhs and Rs.1.00 crore for which the AndhraPradesh Dharmika Parishad is the competent authority for constituting aBoard of Trustees with 9 members.

By way of Act No.8 of 2014, Section 15(2) was also amendedwhereby the number of members in Trust Boards for temples fallingunder Sections 6(b) and 6(c) of the Act of 1987 was also increased. Fortemples falling within Section 6(b), the number of Trust Board memberswas increased from 5 to 7 and for Section 6(c) temples, the number ofmembers grew from 3 to 5. By way of the new fifth Proviso to Section15, two members of the Board of Trustees, instead of the earlier onemember, were required to be prominent persons with a long track recordof philanthropy and support to Hindu Religious Institutions. Earlier, theone member categorized under this Proviso was also required to be aprominent donor but that requirement has been done away with and thepresent two members falling under this category are only required to beprominent persons and not donors. Section 96 of the Act of 1987dealing with Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams was also amended, butthe same is of no relevance presently.

The bone of contention is the new Section 163 introduced in theAct of 1987. This provision admittedly cuts short the tenure of theexisting Chairpersons and members of Trust Boards as their termsceased automatically thereunder, making way for the present State ofAndhra Pradesh to constitute new Trust Boards for all the temples. Thisprovision invariably distinguishes between the existing Trust Boardmembers, as a separate class targeted thereunder, as opposed to futureTrust Board members who would not be subjected to the sametreatment.

The question is whether there is any intelligible differentiabetween these two classes of Trust Board members satisfying Article 14of the Constitution, which permits reasonable classification.

Having given our earnest consideration to the matter, we are ofthe opinion that such is not the case. As pointed out earlier, thequalifications for appointment to the Trust Boards of temples remainunchanged. The appointing authorities also remain the same. Thoughthe learned Advocate General sought to project the classification ofSection 6(a) temples into four new categories as a justification fordisbanding the existing Trust Boards, this Court finds no logic orrationale in this argument. The financial profile of the applicant forappointment as a member on the temple’s Trust Board has no relevancewhatsoever under the provisions of the Act of 1987. Neither Section 15nor Sections 17 and 18 of the Act of 1987 indicate such a criterion beingthe basis for appointment as a Trust Board member. Earlier, all Section6(a) institutions whose annual income exceeded Rs.1.00 crore wereclubbed into one category, whereas under the amended Section 15 theyare now split up into three categories with differing number of memberson the Trust Boards. Except for this, there is no other change.

There is only an overall enhancement in the number of memberson the Trust Boards of temples. There is no material to demonstratebefore us that any of the existing Trust Board members have sufferedany disqualification or warrant removal from office in terms of Section 28of the Act of 1987. As the number of members has increased in such Trust Boards all that is required is that the Government supplements theexisting numbers by appointing new members.

There is no discernible and acceptable factor which sets theexisting Trust Board members apart from Trust Board members whomay be appointed in future. There is therefore no logic or basis forshowing the existing Trust Board members the door. Their en blocremoval without any rationale is therefore an apparent case of nakeddiscrimination. On the one hand, no grounds are cited or established fortheir removal as a single class without reference to the statutoryprotection of Sections 17 and 28 of the Act of 1987 and on the otherhand, is the denial of such protection to them alone when it continues toremain available to future Trust Board members. The clubbing of theexisting Trust Board members into one single class and theirunceremonious removal vide Section 163 therefore demonstrates nakeddiscrimination against them offending Article 14 of the Constitution.

In D.S.REDDI, VICE-CHANCELLOR, OSMANIA UNIVERSITY

V/s. CHANCELLOR, OSMANIA UNIVERSITY[[1]], a Constitution Benchwas dealing with an amendment to the Osmania University Act, 1959,which created a distinction between the existing Vice-Chancellor of theUniversity and all other Vice-Chancellors, before or after him. Referring

t o BUDHAN CHOUDHRY V/s. STATE OF BIHAR[[2]], the Benchobserved that in order to accept a classification as a reasonable andpermissible one, not hit by Article 14, the measure in question wouldhave to pass two tests as laid down therein — (i) that the classificationmust be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishespersons or things that are grouped together from others left out of thegroup and (ii) that that differentia must have rational relation to the objectsought to be achieved by the statute in question. If no such reasonablebasis of classification appears on the face of the statute or is deduciblefrom the surrounding circumstances, the Supreme Court opined that thelaw would have to be struck down as an instance of nakeddiscrimination. Applying these principles, the Supreme Court found thatthe provisions of the Act were directed only against one individual, the existing Vice-Chancellor of the University and the classification whichwas sought to be effected between him as a single class as opposed toall other Vice-Chancellors, past and future, was not founded on anintelligible differentia. No rational relation was established as to theobject sought to be achieved by the amendment creating such aclassification and the same was accordingly held to be unconstitutional.A similar amendment was under challenge in

P. VENUGOPAL V/s. UNION OF INDIA[[3]]. The petitioner before the Supreme Court was the Director of the All IndiaInstitute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. An amendment was effectedto the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956, whereby his termwas sought to be cut short. This was assailed on the ground that itamounted to a single-man legislation intended to affect the petitioneralone and therefore amounted to naked discrimination against him. Referring to the earlier judgment in D.S. REDDI[1],the Supreme Courtheld that the impugned amendment was hit by Article 14 as it intendedonly to carry out premature termination of the tenure of the petitionerwithout justifiable reason or notice. The fact situation was held to besimilar to that obtaining in D.S. REDDI[1] and the impugnedamendment was invalidated as it created an unreasonable classificationbetween the petitioner and future Directors and denied him fairtreatment without there being any intelligible differentia.

The ratio laid down in these two decisions applies on all fours tothe matter on hand.

Cutting short the normal tenure which vested in the existing TrustBoard members under Section 17(2) of the Act of 1987 without anyrational basis, when such guarantee of tenure continues to be availableto future Trust Board members, clearly discriminates against them. Inthis regard, useful reference may also be made to CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD V/s. C.R. RANGADHAMAIAH[[4]], wherein aConstitution Bench was dealing with the connotation of a ‘vested right’. Referring to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, the Bench observed that the expressions ‘vested rights’ or ‘accrued rights’ had been usedwhile striking down impugned provisions which were givenretrospective operation so as to adversely affect the rights ofemployees. The Bench further observed that the expressions wereused in the context of a right flowing under the relevant rule which wassought to be altered with effect from an anterior date, thereby takingaway the benefits available under the rule in force at that time, andaffirmed that it had been held that such an amendment havingretrospective operation and had the effect of taking away a benefitalready available to the employee under the existing rule was arbitrary,discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and16 of the Constitution.

Article 13(2) of the Constitution proscribes the State from makingany law which takes away or abridges fundamental rights and rendersthe law, to the extent of such contravention, void. The impugned Section163 of the Act of 1987 demonstrably offends the principle of equalityenshrined in Article 14 as the existing Trust Board members andChairpersons were targeted as a single class without there being anyreasonable classification based on any intelligible differentia andwithout a rational basis or object. The provision therefore falls foul ofArticle 13(2) of the Constitution.

Interestingly, in M.THIRUPATHI RAO V/s. THE STATE OF

TELANGANA[[5]],we had occasion to consider an amendment onsimilar lines brought by the State of Telangana to the Andhra Pradesh(Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (vide TelanganaOrdinance No.1 of 2014), whereby existing Market Committees weresought to be disbanded en bloc making way for the State to effectreconstitution. This Court held that the amendment was constitutionallyinvalid and accordingly struck down the same.

For the reasons aforestated, Section 163 of the Andhra PradeshCharitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987,inserted by way of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu ReligiousInstitutions and Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2014 (Act No.8 of 2014)

is declared void.

The writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above.W.P.M.P. No.40821 of 2014 in W.P. No.29264 of 2014 was filed by oneDr. M.V. Soundararajan seeking to intervene in the writ petition andsupport the petitioner therein. However, none appeared for theintervening petitioner to press the petition. W.P.M.P. No.40821 of 2014along with other pending miscellaneous petitions in this batch of casesshall therefore stand closed. No order as to costs.

Before we part with the matter, we may point out that Article 300of the Constitution requires that the State be sued in its name. However,we find that in W.P. Nos.29264 and 31352 of 2014, the State has beenwrongly described as the Government of Andhra Pradesh. We thereforedeem it proper that necessary corrections be carried out in the causetitles of these writ petitions. The Registry is accordingly directed tosubstitute ‘The State of Andhra Pradesh’ in the place of ‘TheGovernment of Andhra Pradesh’, wherever necessary, before issuing acopy of this order.

___________________

K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

____________________

SANJAY KUMAR, J

_____December, 2014

L/R copy to be marked – Yes B/o Svv

After pronouncement of the order, the learned Advocate Generalfor the State of Andhra Pradesh prayed that the order may besuspended so as to enable the State to take necessary steps as may beadvised. However, we are of the opinion that a blanket stay of the orderpassed by us would create complications as the orders of status quopassed in the writ petitions were subsisting till date.

We accordingly direct that the orders of status quo which held thefield during the pendency of these writ petitions shall continue for a

Conclusion

further period of four weeks from today. It is further clarified thatwhosoever continued in office as on the date of passing of the statusquo orders in the individual writ petitions would continue pursuant to thisorder for a further period of four weeks from today.

________________________

K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

___________________

SANJAY KUMAR, J

30.12.2014bnr

[1]1967(2) SCR 214 = AIR 1967 SC 1305

[2]AIR 1955 SC 191AIR 1955 SC 191

[3](2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 1

[4](1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 623(1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 623

[5]W.P.No.24877 of 2014 and batch, dated 07.11.2014W.P.No.24877 of 2014 and batch, dated 07.11.2014