P.Veera Vikranth Reddy, v. The State Of A.P.,
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.28747 of 2015 DATED : 08.09.2015 Between :
P. Veera Vikranth Reddy S/o.P.Durga Prasad Reddy, Age 31 yrs, Trustee, Sri Bheemalingeswara Basaveswara, Anjaneya Swamy Temples, R/o.Ramadurgam Village, Chippagiri Mandal, Kurnool District & others.
.. Petitioners and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad & another.
.. Respondents This court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.28747 of 2015 ORDER :
The petitioners are the members of Board of Trustees and they were appointed by proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner dated 02.09.2013. The appointment was for a period of two years. The tenure of such appointment has expired on 02.09.2015. Since the term of the petitioners is completed and petitioners intend to continue as members of the Board of Trustees for another period, they have submitted representations for such continuation, and the villagers have also submitted representations in favour of the petitioners, requesting the authorities to grant extension of the term of the Board of Trustees. Apprehending that the term of Board of Trustees is not likely to be extended, and fresh notification is likely to be issued, this writ petition is filed.
2. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, after the appointment of petitioners as Board of Trustees, they have developed the temple, provided various facilities, conducted several programmes organized in a systematic manner, celebrated the festivals and have been performing various rituals regularly. Thus, on account of the great contributions made by them, the villagers have desired that the petitioners should be continued.
3. In terms of the provisions of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Endowments Act'), the term of Board of Trustees is two years and on expiry of the term, it is competent for the Government to constitute a fresh Board by following the due process as provided under the Endowments Act. However, so far no such steps are taken and even before steps are taken for constitution of new Board, this writ petition is filed. The Endowments Act, do not envisages further continuation without following the procedure as indicated in the Endowments Act. However, it is always open to the petitioners to respond to the fresh notification and based on the performance of the Board of Trustees, it is always open to the competent authority to consider the entitlement of petitioners for another term. But as a matter of right, the petitioners cannot insist for renewal of term and not to go for fresh consideration of claims of others also. Thus, I do not see any merit in the submissions made and the writ petition deserves no consideration.
4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the dismissal of the Writ Petition does not take away the right of the petitioners to work out their grievance otherwise available in law, on any other issue. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.
__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 8th September, 2015.
Rds