WP/18958/2007 of The Sri Ramalinga Chowdeswari Devanga Sankshema Vs The Asst. Commissioner, Endowments Department on 24 December 2007

O R D E R:

This court ordered notice before admission on 11.9.2007 and issuedrule nisi on 03.12.2007. Counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.1.

2. Heard Sri S.T.Gowd, the learned counsel representing the petitionerand the learned G.P. for Endowments.

3. Sri S.T.Gowd, representing learned counsel for the petitioner had takenthis court through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and wouldmaintain that a particular community people alone worship in the temple andit is a temple of denomination. The counsel also had placed before this courtan order made by the concerned Deputy Commissioner, Kurnool inO.A.No.71 of 79 and would maintain that in similar fact situation some templehad been declared as a denomination temple.

4. The learned GP for Endowments had taken this court through thecontents of counter-affidavit and would submit that as far as the relief prayedfor in the writ petition is concerned, the same cannot be granted. However, itis for the petitioner to approach the competent authority, the concernedDeputy Commissioner, Endowments by making appropriate application forredressal of his grievance, if any. At any rate, in the present writ petition, nopositive relief as such can be granted.

5. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.43/2813/2007/Admn, dated 3.8.2007 of the 1[st]respondent as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice,and also the provisions of A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutionsand Endowments Act, 1987 as well as Article 14 of the Constitution of India,and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere into the maintenanceof Sri Ramalinga Chowdeswari Temple, Bukkapatnam (V&M), AnantapurDistrict and pass such other reliefs.

6. It is stated that the petitioner is the president of the Sri RamalingaChowdeswari Devanga Sankashema Sangam, Sri Ramalinga ChowdeswariTemple, Bukkapatnam (V&M), Anantapur District which was registered underthe Societies Registration Act, 35 of 2001 vide Registration No.163 of 2002. The petitioner submitted that the above society was registered only to lookafter the maintenance of Sri Chowdeswari Temple, Bukkapatnam (V&M),Anantapur District. It is submitted that all the members of the Society arebelongs to only Devanga Community. It is submitted that Sri RamalingaChowdeswari Temple is private temple of Devanga Community and it is aDenominational temple and the Management of the Temple is exclusivelyvest with the Devanga Community people alone and the other communitypeople have absolutely no interest in the temple. It is submitted that it ispertinent to state that the temple was constructed by the Devanga communitypeople alone with their funds. It is submitted that till today it is the DevangaCommunity people alone is maintaining the temple out of the funds collectedamong them. It is submitted that Chowdeswari Devi is the KULA DEVATHAof Devanga Community. It is relevant to state here that till today the DevangaCommunity person elected by the Devanga Community alone is maintained the Temple and there was no interference from anybody. It is submitted thatin various places similar temples are situated and the EnodwmentsDepartment have already recognized Chowdeswari Devatha Temple asPrivate Temple of Devanga Community.

It is further stated that the petitioner-society also purchased 28 cents ofland abutting to the temple for further development. It is submitted that theDevanga Community people worship the Chowdeswari Devi as their KulaDevatha and all community people of surrounding 20 villages used to meet inthe temple to dissolve their disputes. It is submitted that every year in themonth of October they are celebrating the ustavas while the matter stood thusthe 1[st] respondent without issuing any notice to the present executivecommittee, constituted a board of trust to the temple in question to managethe affairs of the temple invoking the provisions of Section 15(3) ofA.P.Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987. It is submitted that before exercising the powers under Section 15(3) of theAct the 1[st] respondent ought to have conduct an enquiry for enlisting thetemple as religious under Section 6 of the Act. It is submitted that it is wellsettled law that if any action of the authority follows Civil Consequences theauthorities should issue notice to the effected party before such action. It issubmitted that they are not aware whether the temple was listed in the list ofreligious temples, and even it was listed they have not put on notice andthere was no occasion for them to raise any objections in support of theirclaim. It is submitted that the history and Devanga Puranam published asearly as in the year 1968 makes it clear that the Chowdeswari Devatha isworshiped by Devanga Community and the said diety is the Elevelupu or Kula Devatha of Devanga Community. It is submitted that they are having allnecessary documents since 1937 in support of their claim. Therefore theaction of the 1[st] respondent in constituting the Board of Trustees from othercommunity is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of A.P.Charitable HinduReligious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 and in violation of theArticle 14 of the Constitution of India it is not out of place to state the act hasno application to private temples. In such circumstances, the writ petitionerapproached this court praying for the reliefs specified above.

7. In the counter-affidavit filed to the 1[st] respondent it is stated that the writpetition itself is not maintainable. Further it is averred that it is false to statethat the subject temple and the management of the temple is exclusivelyvested with the said community people alone and other community peoplehave absolutely no interest in the temple. This institution has been publishedunder Section 6©(ii) of the Endowments Act 30 of 1987 under Sl.No.2047 bythe Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, who is competentauthority to do so and hence it attracts the provisions of the said Act. Thetemple falls under jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner, EndowmentsDepartment, Anantapur. By mere getting registration of the said communityunder the societies Registration Act 35 of 2001, the said society cannot claimany rights over the temple and its administration. The EndowmentsDepartment is having exclusive rights on temple and action can be taken forappointment of Trust Board to the temple. At any time by any authority, thetemple was not declared as private one under Section 87 of the EndowmentsAct. Unless and until the Deputy Commissioner, concerned declares it underSection 87, it cannot be called as private temple. All caste people belongs to

Hindu community who have faith in goddess area visiting temple for offeringpoojas devotionally. It is wrong to say that the said community people aloneis developing the institution with their funds without raising donations fromother caste people. Further it is false to state that without giving notice to thepresent committee, the respondents constituted a Trust Board to manage theaffairs of the temple knowing that the temple in question is not havingauthorized Trust Board for effective management a notification was issued inproc.Rc.No.A3/2813/2007, Adm. Dated 11.6.2007 by the AssistantCommissioner inviting applications for appointment of trustees from theinterested public if they have no disqualifications and stipulated certainconditions duly informing all, that action will be taken for constitution of TrustBoard after 15 days from the date of issuing above notice. The said noticeswas sent it to Inspector, Endowments Department, Hindupur for affixture onimportant places to notify it to all people and asked to submit affixture report. The Inspector in his Rc.No.Nil/2007 dated 17.6.2007 has reported that he hasaffixed the said notification to the main door of the subject temple, NoticeBoard of Gram Panchayat, Office of the Mandal Revenue Officer,Bukkapatnam on 13.6.2007 and submitted affixture report to that effect. Thefive consent letters for appointment of Trustees received in this offence weresent to the Inspector, Endowments Department, Hindupur for enquiry andantecedents report in his Proc.Rc.No.A3/2813/2007, Adm. Dated 6.7.2007. In response to it, the Inspector in his Lr.dated 10.7.2007 has submitted thatthe following applicants sent in the above references ie.,

1. Sri Pasala Sreeramulu S/o Balaramudu (SC)

2. Smt. K.Saraswathi W/o S.Vasudeva Murthy (OC)

3. Sri Patti Chandrasekhar S/oChalapathy (OC)

4. Sri Devisetti Gangadhar S/o Chendrayudu (OC)

5. Sri Karnatakam Akkulappa S/o Ganganna (BC)

Have no disqualifications as laid down under Section 19 of the EndowmentsAct 30 of 1987 and the requested to appoint Trust Board with the abovepersons to the subject temple. Further it is averred that basing on the abovereport, a Trust Board with the above persons was constituted in this officeproceedings in Rc.No.A3/2813/2007, Adm.dt.3.8.2007 fixing 14.8.2007 foroath of Office and secrecy to the newly appointed trustees and election ofChairman of Trust Board. The Inspector, Endowments Department,Hindupur, in his letter dated 27.8.2007 has reported that he has administeredthe oath of office and secrecy to the trustees on 14.8.2007 and the TrustBoard in its special meeting unanimously elected Sri Platti Chandra SekharS/o Chalapathi as Chairman of Trust Board and requested to record thesame. The same was recorded in this office in D.Dis.No.A3/2813/2007,Adm.dated 6.9.2007. It is also stated that thus the procedure was followed forappointment of Trust Board to the temple as required in the Enodwments Act. There is no ban to the petitioner herein to apply for trusteeship if he reallydesires to be in authorized Trust Board appointed by the concerned authorityfor better management and development of the institution.

8. In the light of the specific stand taken in the counter-affidavit of R1, it isneedless to say that whether the temple in question is a private temple or apublic temple and whether the temple in question is a temple of denominationor not. These questions are factual controversies and this court cannot gointo these factual controversies. Incidentally no doubt an order made inO.A.No.71 of 79 by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Kurnool had been placed before this court. It is needless to say that the competentauthority, being the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments concerned, let thepetitioner approach the concerned Deputy Commissioner, Endowments,Kurnool by making appropriate application in this regard within a period offour months and let the concerned Deputy Commissioner decide the matter inaccordance with law within a period of three months thereafter.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

24[th] December, 2007.

_________________

P.S.NARAYANA,J

Date:24 -12-2007