CC/1800/2011 of B.V.S.K.Satya Prasad Vs Ms. Y.Sirisha, on 30 December 2011

Conclusion

ORDER:

This is a frivolous and vexatious piece of litigationindulged in by the petitioner by filing this Contempt Case.

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.24498 of 2010questioning order, dated 26.07.2010, appointingrespondent No.2 in the Writ Petition as the ExecutiveOfficer In-charge of the temple in question. By order, dated.01.10.2010, this Court has granted an order of status quoRespondent No.2 in the Writ Petition filed vacate stayapplication, on which this Court has passed order, dated28.02.2011. While negativing the plea of the petitioner thatappointment of Executive Officer of the temple in any way affects his rights, this Court has observed that in theabsence of a Trust Board and being the recognizedmember of the founders family, the petitioner is entitled todischarge the functions of the Board of Trustees under thethird proviso to Section 15(1) of Andhra PradeshCharitable and Hindu Religious Institutions andEndowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’). Therefore,while vacating the order of status quo, this Court havingobserved that serious allegations were made against theExecutive Officer whose appointment was questioned inthe Writ Petition, directed respondent No.1 in the WritPetition to consider posting of any other officer asExecutive Officer in place of respondent No.2 therein.

In the present Contempt Case, the petitioner allegedthat the said order of this Court is violated by therespondent as she has not complied with the provisions ofSection 29(3)(a) of the Act. In filing this Contempt Case,the petitioner seems to have take shelter under theobservations of this Court contained in the followingportion of the order: - “In the impugned order, respondent No.1 stated that inthe interests of better administration of the institutionand having regard to the report submitted by theAssistant Commissioner, Endowments Department,Vijayawada, respondent No.2 is appointed. Evenassuming that the copy of the purported report of theAssistant Commissioner was not supplied to thepetitioner, in my opinion, by appointing the ExecutiveOfficer, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner’sinterests. In the absence of a Trust Board and beingthe recognized member of the founders family, thepetitioner is entitled to discharge the functions of the Board of Trustees under third proviso to Section 15(1)of the Act. Under Section 29(3)(a) of the Act, theExecutive Officer shall be responsible for carrying outall lawful directions issued by the trustee from time totime. In view of these provisions, the rights of thepetitioner are not in any way affected by theappointment of respondent No.2. However, sinceserious allegations have been made by the petitioneragainst the present incumbent of respondent No.2,respondent No.1 is directed to consider the posting ofany other officer as Executive Officer in place of thepresent incumbent. This direction, however, shall notmean that this Court has accepted all the allegationsmade by the petitioner against the presentincumbent.”

The above-noted observations of this Court weremade in the context of repelling the plea of the petitionerthat appointment of Executive Officer in any manneraffects his interests. There was no direction issued by thisCourt that the Executive Officer should follow theprovisions of Section 29(3)(a) of the Act even though suchan obligation is cast on her. As the context for giving adirection to follow the provisions of Section 29(3)(a) of theAct did not arise in the Writ Petition, such a direction wasnot issued. Even assuming that the respondent has notbeen following the lawful directions of the petitioner, he isentitled to avail appropriate remedy to ensure that therespondent follows such directions. Instead of availingsuch remedy, the petitioner has indulged in vexatious actof filing the Contempt Case, obviously, with a view tothreaten the respondent, a public servant, who isappointed to discharge the functions of the Executive Officer of the temple to yield to his authority. This Court isconvinced that the petitioner indulged in abuse of processof Court in filing this Contempt Case. Hence, the ContemptCase is dismissed. For indulging in vexatious litigation, thepetitioner is saddled with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Fivethousand only) payable to the Andhra Pradesh State LegalServices Authority, Hyderabad, within a period of onemonth from today. If such payment is not made, theSecretary, Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority,Hyderabad, shall recover the same through legal process.

__________________________

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J30[th] December 2011DR