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 NOs.1329 and 1330 of 2014 DATED:29.10.2014 Between:
Raj Kumar Bharatlal … Appellant And The Commissioner, Endowments Department Tilak Road Hyderbad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL NOs.1329 and 1330 of 2014
COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
Both these appeals are taken up for hearing as they are filed against a common judgment dt.18.3.2014, in W.P. Nos.7195 and 7196 of 2014.
Writ Petition No.7195 of 2014 was filed for the following relief:
“…to issue an order, direction or a writ, one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, in issuing notice in Form No.1 proposing to constitute Board of Trustees to Sri Murali Manoher Swamy Temple, Kishanbagh, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, as contained in Rc.No.C3/1717/2014 dated 29.01.2014 as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Act No.30 of 1987 and A.P. Endowments Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987 and set aside the same and pass such other orders deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
The further relief sought for in another Writ Petition, being W.P. No.7196 of 2014, is as follows:
“to issue an order, direction or a writ, one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of issuing the instructions/guidelines to be followed in the matter of the Constitution of the Board of Trustees to Sri Murali Manoher Swamy Temple, Kishanbagh, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, contained in Rc. No.C3/1717/2014 dated 29.01.2014 enclosed to notice in Form-I of even number and date, issued by the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, delegating the powers vested in him under Sections 15 and 17 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987, to the Assistant Commissioner, as illegal and contrary to Section 8(5) of the said Act and pass such other orders deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
It is to be noticed that no consequential relief has been asked for. It appears from the body of the petitions, so also found by the learned trial Judge, if the declaration as sought for is granted, it will neither protect nor jeopardize the interests of the writ petitioner. In other words, the writ petitioner has not been able to establish his enforceable right as required under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the event applications for appointment of trustees are entertained, the petitioner is no way affected, as his right to become trustee on hereditary basis is not affected or taken away, as noticed by the learned trial Judge in the impugned Judgment. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain these appeals.
The writ appeals are accordingly dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 29.10.2014 bnr