WP/27609/2009 of P. Anantha Rama Sarma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 December 2009

1. 1997 (2) ALD 59 (DB)2. 2001 (6) ALT 433 (FB)3. (2003) 7 SCC 546

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOAND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA

.12.2009

Between:

P.Anantha Rama Sarma, S/o.Late P.K.R. Sarma

AND

… Petitioner

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by itsChief Secretary, Secretariat, HyderabadAnd others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA

WRIT PETITION No.27609 OF 2009

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

This writ petition is filed by Sri P.Anantha Rama Sarma, aresident of Hyderabad, by way of public interest litigation (PIL). Thesubject of writ petition is the decision of the third respondent takes upthe project of ‘Ananda Nilayam Anantha Swarnamayam’ (ANAS)which is to provide gold plating to the main sanctum sanctorum (calledAnanda Nilayam) of the presiding deity of Tirumala in Chittoor District.The relief sought is to prohibit respondents 3 and 5 from proceedingwith the project. The grievance of the petitioner is that gold plating ofTirumala temple would necessarily require stringent security measuresand thereby causing inconvenience and hardship to the visitingpilgrims. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that if AnandaNilayam is covered with gold, it would violate the instructions issuedby Government of Andhra Pradesh three decades ago and theinscriptions on the walls of the temple (epigraphs) would beunavailable to the people visiting the temple. Who is this petitioner andwhat is his locus standi to invoke PIL jurisdiction to assail resolution ofthe third respondent passed a year ago? Whether he availed otherremedies for redressal of his grievances? And whether the grievanceis valid? In this in limine order, we may briefly consider these aspects.

We have heard Sri Tallapaka K.Raghavan, learned counsel forthe petitioner. Placing reliance on the Division Bench Judgment inTallapaka Koppu Raghavan v State of A.P.,[[1]], learned counselsubmits that anything done by third respondent contrary to the public interest and devotees would violate the provisions of the AndhraPradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and EndowmentsAct, 1987 (the Act, for brevity) and Rules made thereunder. He alsohighlighted the importance of epigraphs and inscriptions on the outerwalls of sanctum sanctorum. According to him, if ANAS is allowed toproceed, it would result in losing all historical writings.

Locus standi

The petitioner is a law book seller for over twenty-five years. Heowns a book shop near High Court of Andhra Pradesh. He takes pridethat he reached this stage starting the life as travelling law book seller.As he believes that he has blessings of Lord Venkateswara inabundance, he statedly visits temple at Tirumala once in a month. Heused to buy books on the history of temple and also distributed them toothers. For the last decade and a half, Darshan of Lord Venkateswarahas become hazardous. Third respondent introduced ‘Laghu Darshan’and ‘Maha Laghu Darshan’. He alleges that third respondent at thebehest of fifth respondent proposed ANAS without applying mind andis bent upon to go ahead with the project. The Government of A.P.,passed circular No.23/77 dated 27.08.1977 directing the DeputyCommissioners and Assistant Commissioners of EndowmentsDepartment to take necessary steps to protect and preserve beautifulsculptures and valuable inscriptions available in temples. In spite ofthe same, third respondent is taking up gold plating work.

The petitioner also refers to survey and study of DevasthanamEpigraphics by Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam’s (TTD) ArcheologistSadhu Subrahmanya Sastry. After such study, TTD published sixvolumes containing the original inscriptions and their Englishtranslations. The petitioner also asserts that after TTD Board resolvedto take up ANAS. Lot of controversial statements have been made andpublished in newspapers and if ANAS project of TTD under theinfluence of fifth respondent is taken up, no member of public will knowthe history or see inscriptions on the walls in their natural appearance.

The subject of writ petition is certainly not a secular one. It is areligious matter. But, the petitioner’s right to religion guaranteed underArticle 25 of Constitution of India is intact. He is not denied access totemple or ‘Laghu Darshan’ or ‘Maha Laghu Darshan’. If he isinterested, history found inscribed on the outer walls of AnandaNilayam, indisputably, already number of extensive surveys have beenmade and as many as eight volumes are brought out by TTD. It is noteven his case that right guaranteed under Article 26 of Constitution ofIndia to every religious denomination to establish and maintain templeor manage their affairs have been taken away. As noticed supra, hisgrievance is two fold; that more security would have to be provided which might result in more hazardous situation for the pilgrimsincluding he and people like him would not be able to see theinscriptions and epigraphs on the walls of the temple though they arevery much available in the printed form in eight volumes brought out byTTD.

In the background of the case as seen above, can it be said thatpetitioner has locus standi to question the action. A full Bench of thisCourt to which one of us was a member (VVSR,J) in Andhra PradeshScheduled Tribes Employees’ Association v Aditya Pratap BhanjDev[[2]]considered the scope of PIL and in the light of Supreme Courtdecided cases summarized as many as ten principles. It is notnecessary to refer to them. In Guruvayoor Devaswom ManagingCommittee v C.K.Rajan[[3]], Supreme Court summarized theseprinciples which are as follows.

(i) The Court in exercise of powers under Article 32 andArticle 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain a petitionfiled by any interested person in the welfare of the people whois in a disadvantaged position and, thus, not in a position toknock the doors of the Court. The Court is constitutionallybound to protect the fundamental rights of suchdisadvantaged people so as to direct the State to fulfill itsconstitutional promises. (See S.P. Gupta v Union of India,1981 Supp SCC 87, People's Union for Democratic Rights vUnion of India ((1982) 2 SCC 494), Bandhua Mukti Morcha vUnion of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 and Janata Dal vH.S.Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305).

(ii) Issues of public importance, enforcement of fundamentalrights of large number of public vis-a-vis the constitutionalduties and functions of the State, if raised, the Court treat aletter or a telegram as a public interest litigation upon relaxingprocedural laws as also the law relating to pleadings. (SeeCharles Sobraj v Superintendent, Central Jail, (1978) 4 SCC104 and Hussainara Khatoon (I) v Home Secretary, State ofBihar (1980) 1 SCC 81).

(iii) Whenever injustice is meted out to a large number ofpeople, the Court will not hesitate in stepping in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the InternationalConventions on Human Rights provide for reasonable and fairtrial.

(iv) The common rule of locus standi is relaxed so as toenable the Court to look into the grievances complained onbehalf of the poor, depraved, illiterate and the disabled whocannot vindicate the legal wrong or legal injury caused to themfor any violation of any constitutional or legal right. (SeeFertilizer Corporation Kamagar Union v Union of India (1981)

1 SCC 568, S.P.Gupta (supra), People's Union forDemocratic Rights (supra), D.C.Wadhwa (Dr) v State of Bihar((1987) 1 SCC 378 and BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd) vUnion of India (2002) 2 SCC 333) .

(v) When the Court is prima facie satisfied about violation ofany constitutional right of a group of people belonging to thedisadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or theGovernment, from raising the question as to themaintainability of the petition. (See Bandhua Mukti Morcha(supra)).

(vi) Although procedural laws apply on PIL cases but thequestion as to whether the principles of res judicata orprinciples analogous thereto would apply depend on thenature of the petition as also facts and circumstances of thecase. (See Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v State ofU.P. (1989 Supp (1) SCC 504, and Forward Construction Co. v Prabhat Mandal (Regd) (1986) 1 SCC 100).

(vii) The dispute between two warring groups purely in therealm of private law would not be allowed to be agitated as apublic interest litigation. (See Ramsharan Autyanuprasi vUnion of India 1989 Supp (1) SCC 251.

(viii) However, in an appropriate case, although the petitionermight have moved a Court in his private interest and forredressal of the personal grievances, the Court in furtheranceof the public interest may treat it necessary to enquire into thestate of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest ofjustice. (See Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v Dr.Mahesh MadhavGosavi (19787) 1 SCC 227.

(ix) The Court in special situations may appoint Commission,or other bodies for the purpose of investigating into theallegations and finding out facts. It may also directmanagement of a public institution taken over by suchcommittee. (See Bandhua Mukti Morcha (supra), RakeshChandra Narayan v State of Bihar (1989 Supp (1) SCC 644and A.P. Pollution Control Board v M.V.Nayudu ((1999) 2SCC 718).

(x) The Court would ordinarily not step out of the known areasof judicial review. The High Courts although may pass anorder for doing complete justice to the parties, it does not havea power akin to Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

(xi) Ordinarily the High Court should not entertain a writpetition by way of Public Interest Litigation questioningconstitutionality or validity of a Statute or a Statutory Rule.

Therefore, unless and until there is gross violation offundamental rights by a group or it is a class action against invasion ofhuman rights when those aggrieved persons are not in a position toapproach the Court themselves, PIL jurisdiction is invoked. All policydecisions are not justiceable in a writ Court unless there aredemonstrable mala fides attributable to public authorities. There is nodenial that the administration and management of TTD is entrusted tostatutorily constituted Board of Trustees, who have the powers to takesuch policy decisions having regard to the public interest, services,safety measures and amenities to be provided for the pilgrims.Secondly, when TTD passed a resolution a year ago, the writ petitionis filed now making very vague allegations against fifth respondent,who is the chairman of TTD Board of Trustees. We have a strangefeeling that there is something which does not meet the eye. Exceptmaking vague allegations against fifth respondent that he isinfluencing the Board and he is the person behind ANAS, no specificinstances of alleged illegality and impropriety are pointed out. We aretherefore convinced that the petitioner has no locus standi to file writpetition.

The decision relied on by the counsel, in T.Koppu Raghavan(supra) is a case where an attempt of a movie company to make afeature film on the life of saint poet Annamayya on Tirumala Hills wassubject matter and this Court issued a Mandamus prohibiting TTD frompermitting shooting of the film or any other films on Tirumala Hills. Thesaid judgment or observations made therein have no relevance eitherto the locus standi or grievance of the petitioner nor the decisionsupports the counsel’s submission.Alternative remedies

TTD Board constituted under Section 96 of the Act shallexercise powers under Section 97 and those contemplated under thepowers & functions of TTD Board Rules, 1990 (promulgated videG.O.Ms.No.311, dated 09.04.1990). All the decisions of the TTD Boardby way of resolution can be subject matter of revision or review beforeGovernment of A.P., under Sections 121 and 122 of the Actrespectively. The petitioner has not availed these remedies nor thepetitioner has brought to the notice of this Court any of those interestedin the temple availing these remedies. The resolution No.456, dated20.09.1998 was unanimously passed by the Board to take up ANASproject in Sri Tirumala temple in two phases. The petitioner who keptquite all these days chose to file the writ petition probably for thereason that the work is in progress. The submission that TTD Boardignored the Government Circular dated 27.08.1997 is alsomisconceived. Even according to petitioner’s counsel, TTD is governed by the provisions of Chapter XIV and therefore, the circularissued in relation to other temples may not have any applicability toTTD. Such issues as gold plating the sanctum sanctorium,construction of temples, protection of ancient monuments etc., areordinarily not amenable to strict scrutiny of this Court and must receivedeferential scrutiny. We leave the matter there.

We may also point out that in the absence of any allegation ofviolation of fundamental right, statutory or common law right, even ifthe petitioner is a devotee of Lord Venkateswara as long as hisreligious right is not affected, he cannot seek judicial review of adecision taken by the Board of Trustees of TTD unanimously to takeup ANAS project. If TTD has to provide more security after completionof ANAS, it is only sequential action and would be well in tune with thepresent day risk which all religious institutions in India face due tomilitancy. These are the matters which must not weigh with the Courtof judicial review in dealing with a policy decision of a religious body.Lord Venkateswara is richest God in the Universe and millions ofpeople reposing great faith visit the temple and if extra security isprovided either before or after ANAS, such steps must be welcome. Asthere is constant and continuous flow of pilgrims to Tirumala, the TTDBoard may have taken such steps like providing ‘Laghu Darshan’ and‘Maha Laghu Darshan’ so that more number of persons will haveDarshan of the Presiding Deity within available time. Those stepscannot be faulted. In Bhakti cult there are instances where devoteestake upon themselves unimaginable hardship like moving on knees,moving in a prostate position and walking on thorns and nails to visitpresiding Deity of temple of their choice. A devotee like the petitioner,therefore, cannot complain if he is permitted ‘Laghu Darshan’ or ‘MahaLaghu Darshan’ depending on rush of the people to have Darshan atthe temple of Lord Venkateswara.

The issue raised in this writ petition, in our considered opinion,is not justiceable. Such issues lack adjudicative disposition becausethere are always two views. Which is the best view is left to membersof TTD Board who are themselves presumed to be great devotees ofLord Venkateswara. Their decisions must receive respect of the Court.In the result, for the above brief reasons, the writ petition isdismissed in limine. There shall no order as to costs.

_______________

(V.V.S.RAO, J)

.12.2009

NOTE:L.R. copy be marked.(By order)pln

[1]1997 (2) ALD 59 (DB)[2]2001 (6) ALT 433 (FB)[3](2003) 7 SCC 546

Conclusion

____________________(B.N.RAO NALLA, J)