The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed contending that the appointment of the 5th respondent-Assistant Commissioner as the fit person to the Mutt is not in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act, 1987.
The 11th Mathadhipathi of Sri Madvirat Pothuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamy Mutt (the Mutt) expired on 08.05.2021. He had left behind four sons and four daughters from his first wife and two minor sons from his second wife. The eldest son, and the second son of the first wife and the first son of the second wife are claiming the succession to the mathadhipathi of the Mutt. Section 52 read with Section 53 and Section 54 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) provides that the Dharmika Parishad, after conducting necessary procedures, set out in those provisions, would have to determine the rightful successor to the position of the Mathadhipathi of the Mutt and to make interim arrangements for administration of the Mutt. In pursuance of these provision the Dharmika Parishad by proceedings dated 12.06.2021 appointed the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Kadapa as the fit person to manage the affairs of the Mutt till a decision is taken on the succession of the Mathadhipathi. These proceedings were challenged before the Court, by one of the contenders, by way of Petition of 2021. The said proceedings were set-aside by an order dated 16.07.2021 on the ground that the resolution appointing the Assistant Commissioner as the fit person, was not signed by all the members of the Dharmika Parishad, signing the circulated resolution, and the same was in violation of Dharmika Parishad rules. It was left open to the Dharmika Parishad to pass fresh orders after complying with the requirements of the Dharmika Parishad rules.
Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner therein moved Appeal of 2021 which was disposed of by an order dated 23.09.2021, leaving it open to the Dharmika Parishad to pass orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner was again appointed as a fit person by the Dharmika Parishad on 29.11.2021, to manage the affairs of the Mutt, till the Mathadhipathi takes charge.
The petitioner herein who is said to be a member of the clan of the founder of the Mutt, Sri Pothuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamy, has filed the present Public Interest Litigation contending that the appointment of the 5th respondent-Assistant Commissioner as the fit person to the Mutt is not in accordance with the provisions of Sections 53 and 54 of the Act and that the 5th respondent is not acting in the interest of the Mutt apart from violating traditions of the Mutt as well as the appointment order dated 29.11.2021 which does not authorize the 5th respondent to conduct any of the rituals of the Mutt.
M. Pitchaiah, the counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that Section 54 of the Act requires that in the event of a failure of the Mathadhipathi to nominate his successor, the Dharmika Parishad would have to convene a meeting with the Mathadhipaths of other maths of the same Sampradayam and the disciples of the math and recognize the person nominated in such meetings as a Mathadhipathi whereas the 5th respondentAssistant Commissioner has been appointed without following this procedure and the same is not in accordance with the provisions of the Endowments Act.
“This contention of the counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be in consonance with the provisions of the Endowments Act. Section 54 requires the convening of a meeting of a Mathadhipathis of Mutts following the same Sampradayam and the disciples of the Mutt for the purpose of recognizing the person who has to be appointed as Mathadhipathi. Neither this provision nor Section 53 of the Act relating to the filling of permanent vacancies in the office of Mathadhipathi applies to the present situation. The appointment of the 5th respondent-Assistant Commissioner as a fit person has been made under Section 52 of the Endowments Act. This provision operates in an entirely different context. This provision empowers the Dharmika Parishad only to make necessary arrangements on a temporary basis, till the next Mathadhipathi takes charge of the affairs of the Mutt. In such circumstances, the question of the 3rd respondent Dharmika Parishad violating the provisions of Section 54 of the Endowments Act does not arise”, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao.
The other contention of mismanagement of the affairs of the Mutt and alleged interference in the religious aspects of the Mutt have only be stated without any further material before the Court.
Apart from this, the Government Pleader for Endowments would submit that the matter has been under consideration of the Dharmika Parishad and appropriate decisions could not be taken in view of the subsequent proceedings which had been initiated in relation to the succession of the Peethadhipathi of the Mutt.
In such circumstances, the Bench do not find any irregularity in the appointment of the 5th respondent-Assistant Commissioner as a fit person and the Public Interest Litigation is accordingly dismissed by the High Court.