Telangana High Court
WP/20467/2004 of Samsani Subbarayudu, Vs The Assistant Commissioner, on 24 December 2007
G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.20467 of 2004 Dated this the 24th day of December, 2007 Between: Samsani Subbarayudu and another … Petitioners AND The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Kadapa. … Respondent HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.20467 of 2004 ORDER: This Writ
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU
W.P.No.20467 of 2004
Dated this the 24[th] day of December, 2007
Between:
Samsani Subbarayudu
and another … Petitioners
AND
The Assistant Commissioner ofEndowments, Kadapa. … Respondent HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU
W.P.No.20467 of 2004
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking todeclare that the impugned notification dated 16.10.2004 issued by therespondent-Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Kadapa Districtis illegal, arbitrary and beyond jurisdiction and also violative of Articles14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2) The petitioner contends that Sri Veeranjaneya SwamyTemple situated at Vishwanathapur, Choupada Mandal, KadapaDistrict is a private temple. The respondent without any jurisdictionissued the impugned notification seeking applications from the publicto consider their names for appointment as trustees for the temple. The petitioners challenged the said notification through this writpetition by contending that it is a private temple.
3) The learned Government Pleader for Endowmentsappearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that it is a templenotified under Section 6 (c) of the Endowments Act. Therefore, therespondent-Assistant Commissioner has every right to take steps for appointment of trustees for Trust Board of the said temple.
4) The learned Government Pleader for Endowments has notproduced any proceedings or any document notifying that it is aregistered temple. Since there is a disputed question of fact, theimpugned notice cannot be automatically quashed. However, it is forthe petitioners to verify whether it is a temple registered under the Actor not. If it is not registered, the Assistant Commissioner will have nojurisdiction to call for the applications from the persons to be appointedas trustees for Trust Board of the said temple. If the authorities haveany record that the temple has been registered under 6 (c) of the Act,they are directed to mention the registration number in the notificationand issue a fresh notification. If the petitioners are aggrieved by suchnotification, they are at liberty to question such action under theprovisions of the Act.
5) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
__________________
Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, JDate: 24-12-2007Isn