WP/42779/2015 of Boppana Veera Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary on 31 December 2015

O R D E R :

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief/s:

‘….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction moreparticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring theaction of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in not considering therepresentations dated 10.6.2015, 1.12.2015 and proposing to holdensuring Janmabhoomi – Mavooru Programme in the premisesof Lord Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple of KandulapalemVillage, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District isillegal, arbitrary and violation of section 23(4) (a) of A.P.Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act,1987 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently directthe respondents not to hold ensuring Janmabhoomi – Mavoorprogramme to be held in the first week of January, 2016 in thepremises of Lord Sri Venkatswara Swamy Temple,Kandulapalem village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, EastGodavari District and pass such other order…’

[Reproduced verbatim]

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for thepetitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (AP)appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and the learned StandingCounsel appearing for the 5[th] respondent. I have perused the materialrecord.

3. The case of the writ petitioner as set out in the writ petition andas per the submissions made on his behalf, in brief, is this: ‘Therespondents 2 to 5 by not considering the representations dated10.06.2015 and 01.12.2015 of the petitioner had proposed to hold theJanmabhoomi – Mavooru programme in the premises of Lord SriVenkateswara Swamy Temple of Kandulapalem Village ofRamachandrapuram Mandal. The said proposed programme isscheduled to be held on 04.01.2016 in the premises of the Lord SriVenkateswara Swamy Temple. The writ petitioner is a grand child ofthe founder of the Temple, who had also donated some assets to theTemple. There are rival political groups in the village and each group is trying to dominate the other group. Earlier in the year 2015 a similarprogramme was held in the premises of the Temple. At that time,turbulence had occurred and inconvenience was caused to thedevotees and peace and tranquility of the temple atmosphere wasdisturbed by the political groups which had exchanged challenges invulgar language. At that time, the organizers of that event hadarranged a feast to the followers of the political parties and served nonvegetarian food items by resorting to slaughtering goats and chikenand alcohol was consumed in the premises of the Temple. Theofficers who were present at that time did not resist the high handedbehaviour of the persons who had indulged in such activities and hadkept quiet. In the circumstances, the petitioner apprehends suchsimilar incidents and activities may also take place this time also, if theproposed Janmabhoomi programme is conducted this year also in thepremises or near the premises of the temple. In such circumstances,the petitioner is constrained to file the writ petition seeking a directionnot to conduct the Janmabhoomi programme in the premises of SriLord Venkateswara Swamy Temple. However, the petitioner has noobjection for conducting the said programme elsewhere in the village.’

4. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue having securedinstructions would submit that the propsosed Janmabhoomiprogramme is not being organized in the Temple premises; but, is onlyproposed to be organized in a place near the temple premises and thatthe Gram Panchayat Office building is a very small premises and that,therefore, it is not possible to hold the Gram Sabha or Janmabhoomiprogramme in the panchayat office and that the programme is anauthorized programme and that due to non availability of sufficientplace in the gram panchayat office and at any other place in thevillage, the proposed premises is chosen for conducting theJanmabhoomi Gram Sabha and that it is a general practice in thevillages to consult elders of the village and have the programmes in the premiseses of the Temples and, therefore, the writ petition isdevoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the 5[th] respondent whileendorsing the views of the learned Government Pleader for Revenuehad also stated that since the programme is being proposed to be heldnear the Temple and not in the Temple premises the writ petition isdevoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have given earnest consideration to the facts and thesubmissions. At the hearing, on an enquiry made by this Court as towhether the Tahasildar concerned would take necessary steps toavoid any untoward incidents and for the maintenance of law andorder, in case the programme is permitted to be held as schedulednear the Venkateswara Swamy Temple, the learned GovernemtPleader is not in a position to give any such assurance as he could notget the necessary instructions due to the paucity of time. However, it isfairly conceded that there is a political rivalry between two groups inthe village.

7. Having regard to the facts and the untoward/unpleasantincidents that were said to have taken place during the previous year,and after giving earnest consideration to the submissions of both thesides, this Court is of the well considered view that it is not just and fairto allow as proposed the Janmabhoomi programme on 04.01.2016near the premises of the Temple considering the vital fact that sereneatmosphere is to be maintained in and around the Temple or for thatmatter at any religious place.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed directing therespondents not to hold the proposed Janmabhoomi – Mavooruprogramme as proposed near the premises of Lord Sri VenakateswaraSwamy Temple and instead hold it at any place either near thePanchayat office or any other public place available in the village away from the Temple. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.

_____________________M. Seetharama Murti, J

Dt: 31[st] December, 2015 Note: Issue CC by 02.01.2016(B/o)RAR