IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.15178 OF 2014 DATED: 17-07-2014 Between:
Yanamandra Veeraswarna Sarma and others … Petitioners And The Institution of Lokayukta, Andhra Pradesh and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.15178 OF 2014
ORDER: (per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
Notice has been served on the unofficial respondent but no one appears on his behalf. The respondent-temple filed its counter.
2. This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings initiated and the order impugned passed by the Hon’ble Upa- Lokayukta of Andhra Pradesh. The foundation of this enquiry and consequently, the order impugned, is on brief fact as follows: One C. Varahalarao, Ex-Trustee of Bhadrakali Sametha Veeraswaraswamy Devasthanam, Muramalla, Komaragiri Village, I.Polavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, being the unofficial respondent herein, made a complaint to the Hon’ble Upa- Lokayukta of Andhra Pradesh alleging that coconut halves accumulated in the subject temple towards the temple share were being carried away by the Archakas themselves and requested to curtail this practice through which the temple was being deprived of its legitimate income.
3. In this context, the Hon’ble Upa-Lokayukta held, based on a report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada, that when the Archakas and Purohits were requested to surrender the coconut halves in order to put them to public auction, they vehemently opposed the said proposal and gave a written representation to that effect. He also held that the Archakas had no right over the coconut halves and the income therefrom should go to the temple only. Thereafter, a direction was given to the Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P., Hyderabad to instruct the subject temple authorities to conduct public auction of the coconut halves by following the procedure and rules and remit the auction amount to the credit of the temple account.
4. We examined the question of jurisdiction of the Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta in our earlier decisions. One of such decisions is annexed to this writ petition. In the said decision, we held after examining the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act, 1983 that the said authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of this nature and had no power to give any mandate thereon.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said decision should be followed in this case. The learned counsel for the respondent-temple submits that he leaves the matter to the decision of the Hon’ble Court in accordance with law.
6. We find that the complaint was made for a direction against private individuals and not in relation to inaction of the officers mentioned in Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act, 1983. The Hon’ble Upa-Lokayukta recorded findings and rendered a decision in relation to the act of private individuals, namely, Archakas, and at that, without even hearing them. Therefore, we hold that the Hon’ble Upa-Lokayukta of Andhra Pradesh had no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and had no authority to pass orders thereon, much less the impugned order. We set aside the impugned order and so also the complaint. However, it will be open to any person concerned to take fresh action in accordance with law before the appropriate forum, if so advised.
7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 17-07-2014 Svv