Munaga Sudhakar Rao v. The Commissioner Of Endowments, Hyderabad

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.21924 of 2001 ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 in appointing respondent No.2 as Person-in-Management to Sri Kodanda Ramaswamy temple, B.K.N. Street, Kadapa, vide proceedings Rc.No.G3/46606/2001-7, dated 31.8.2001, as illegal and arbitrary.

The petitioner filed this Writ Petition styling himself as a founder trustee of Sri Kodanda Ramaswamy temple, Kadapa. His preliminary objection to the impugned proceedings is that respondent No.1 has appointed respondent No.2 as Person-inManagement to the said temple without giving any notice to him.

Heard Sri K.V.Upendra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Endowments (Telangana) appearing for respondent No.1.

When this Court put a specific question to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to under what provision of law a notice should be given to the petitioner before appointing respondent No.2 as Person-in-Management, the learned counsel was unable to show any provision of law under which issuance

of notice is mandatory before appointing a Person-inManagement to a temple. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments (Andhra Pradesh) appearing for respondent No.1 contended that Commissioner is the competent authority to appoint Person-inManagement to look after the affairs of the temple and therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

It is pertinent to note that the Persons-in-Management are appointed by respondent No.1 as there is a dearth of Executive Officers to look after various temples in the State. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, this Court is of the considered view that there are no merits in the Writ Petition as respondent No.1-Commissioner is the competent authority to appoint respondent No.2 as Person-in-Management to look after the affairs of the temple in question.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

The Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI 29th June, 2018 DR