HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1364 OF 2014 DATED:06.11.2014 Between:
Dattatreya and Navagraha Temple Dattatreya Pahad Represented by its authorized Narender Giri and others … Appellants And Government of Telangana Represented by its Principal Secretary (Endowments Department) Secretariat Building Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1364 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge dt.13.10.2014 by which His Lordship has been pleased to dismiss the Writ petition on the ground that there is an alternative remedy available to the appellants – writ petitioners under the Statute, i.e., the Endowments Tribunal.
We have checked up Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. We are of the view that the dispute raised, namely, the jurisdiction of the Officer who passed the order in 2006 which was challenged in the writ petition, can be examined and decided by the Tribunal.
Section 87(1) of the Act reads as under:
87. Power of Endowments Tribunal to decide certain disputes and matters:-
“(1) The Endowments Tribunal having jurisdiction shall have the power, after giving notice in the prescribed manner to the person concerned, to enquire into and decide any dispute as to the question.
a. Whether an institution or endowment is a charitable institution or endowment;
b. Whether an institution or endowment is a religious institution or endowment;
c. Whether any property is an endowment, if so whether it is a charitable endowment or a religious endowment;
d. Whether any property is a specific endowment;
e. Whether any person is entitled by custom or otherwise to any honor, emoluments or perquisites in any charitable or religious institution or endowment and what the established usage of such institution or endowment is in regard to any other matter;
f. Whether any institution or endowment is wholly or partly of a secular or religious character and whether any property is given wholly or partly for secular or religious uses; or
g. Where any property or money has been given for the support of an institution or endowment which is partly of a secular character and partly of a religious character or the performance of any service or charity connected with such institution or endowment or the performance of a charity which is partly of a secular character and partly of a religious character or where any property or money given is appropriated partly to secular uses and partly to religious uses, as to what portion of such property or money shall be allocated to secular or religious uses;
h. whether a person is a founder or a member from the family of the founder of an Institution or Endowment.”
From the aforesaid Section it appears that the question of jurisdiction of the officer who passed the Order impugned in the writ petition can also be decided by the Tribunal. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned trial Judge. However, we make it clear that adverse observations of the learned trial Judge, if any, will not stand in the way to decide the matter in accordance with law by the Tribunal. All questions are kept open. We desire that the question of jurisdiction of the officer who has passed the order impugned in the writ petition should be decided first after giving notice to the writ petitioners - appellants as well as respondent No.5.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ 6.11.2014 SANJAY KUMAR, J bnr