Nampally Sri Ram Hanuman Worship Place Is A Temple, Not Mutt: HC

Justice K. Sarath of the Telangana High Court ruled that Sri Ram Hanuman Mutt, Nampally, is a temple and not a Mutt and upheld the orders passed by the Endowments Department classifying it as a temple under the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act. The judge dismissed the plea and upheld the Gazette Notification issued on September 21, 1989, which notified the institution as a temple under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act, and rejected the plea of petitioner seeking its reclassification as a mutt under Section 6(d). The judge dismissed the plea of the writ petitioner and upheld the Gazette Notification issued in September 1989, which notified the institution as a temple under the Endowments Act, and rejected the plea of petitioner seeking its reclassification as a Munder Section 6(d) of the Act. The petitioner would contend that the institution originated as a Mutt founded by a Mahant, followed a spiritual line of succession, and contained samadhis within its premises, which according to the petitioner established its monastic character. The petitioner also argued that the Endowments authorities acted arbitrarily in treating the institution as a temple, that the revision filed by a devotee suffered from delay, and that such devotee lacked locus standi to challenge the recognition of the Mahant. Rejecting these contentions, the judge relied on Munthakab records (1345 Fasli), Gazette notifications, and departmental records, which consistently described the institution as a Hanuman temple. Counsel for the Respondent, B.Mangilal Naik vehemently argued that in the Munthakab of 1345 Fasli, the institution is clearly described as a temple, not a mutt and the petitioners herein are misrepresenting facts to grab temple property under the guise of calling it a Mutt. The judge ruled that the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments lacked jurisdiction to recognize a Mahant for a temple and that the 1995 proceedings recognizing anyone as Mahant were void, ultra vires, and without authority of law. It was further observed that once an institution stands notified as a temple, the question of appointing a Mahant does not arise. The judge further observed that a devotee possesses locus standi as a “person interested” under the Act to question illegal appointments affecting a temple and reiterated that a void order remains open to challenge at any stage. Noting material inconsistencies in the pleadings of petitioner, the judge observed that the petitioner approached the Court with unclean hands and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.

Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti of the Telangana High Court came down heavily on the revenue authorities and imposed costs of five thousand rupees for their lackadaisical approach in not filing counter affidavits and failing to comply with the directions of the court. The judge is dealing with a writ plea filed by Pitchakuntla Hanumantha Rao and others challenging inaction of revenue authorities in issuing appropriate proceedings certifying that the land admeasuring about 5 acres at Thimmapur village of Kothuru Mandal, Mahabubnagar District as the patta land. During the hearing, the Court observed that orders passed earlier were not complied with, even in contempt proceedings. Justice Anil observed that the respondents failed to file counters within the stipulated time or seek permission for the delay, reflecting disregard for writ rules 12A and the procedural discipline under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Judge further noted that, despite repeated opportunities, the concerned officer did not even seek special leave or place a counter affidavit on record. The Court took a serious view of what it termed as frivolous and casual conduct, particularly on the part of the Tahsildar, Kothuru Mandal. The judge directed the respondents to pay the costs to the petitioners.

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court voiced disapproval at the the “pick-and-choose” policy adopted by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation (APIDC) in matters of promotion and ruled that a junior employee cannot supersede seniors when promotions are governed by seniority-cum-merit to non-selection posts. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Attelli Balaraju, who joined APIDC as a Junior Stenographer in 1981 and rose through the ranks to become an Assistant Manager. It was contended that despite his undisputed seniority in the feeder cadre, he was repeatedly overlooked for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager, while several of his juniors were promoted ahead of him in 1999 and again in 2007. APIDC contended that promotions were governed by the principle of seniority-cum-merit and that the petitioner had failed to secure the benchmark marks fixed by the Departmental Promotion Committees. The Corporation also raised objections on the ground of delay and laches, asserting that the petitioner had been duly considered on multiple occasions and also received all terminal and retirement benefits. Rejecting the contentions of the Corporation, Justice Bheemapaka held that the post of Deputy Manager was a non-selection post under the applicable promotion policies, where seniority is the dominant consideration and comparative merit has no role unless the senior-most eligible officer is found unsuitable. The judge noted that APIDC neither disputed the seniority of petitioner nor alleged any adverse remarks or pending disciplinary proceedings against him. The judge observed that juniors with equal or even lesser marks were promoted, exposing a selective and discriminatory application of criteria. The Judge reiterated that in promotions based on seniority-cum-merit to non-selection posts, a senior employee cannot be superseded in favour of juniors. It also held that introduction of rigid cut-off marks and selection-style evaluation by APIDC was without authority of law, and that such an approach was arbitrary and constitutionally impermissible.

BC reservations in local body elections

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea challenging the constitutional validity of provisions granting reservation to backward classes in urban local body elections without sub-categorisation and implementation of sub-categorisation in the forthcoming elections to 121 Municipal Councils and 10 Municipal Corporations, including wards and the offices of Chairpersons and Mayors. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin is hearing a writ petition filed by Mangali Chinna Adi Murthy and others. It is the case of the petitioner that sections 7, 28 and 29 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 and government order issued on January 13, which provide reservation to backward classes in municipal wards and in the offices of Chairpersons and Mayors without classifying them into BC-A, BC-B, BC-C and BC-D groups is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners would contend that the impugned provisions run contrary to the long-standing reservation policy of state in force for over 56 years. The petitioner would point out that the government order issued on September 23, 1970 classified backward classes into four distinct groups based on varying degrees of social, educational and economic backwardness, pursuant to the recommendations of the Anantapuram Commission. Counsel for petitioner argued that the absence of sub-categorisation has led to systematic political monopolisation by socially and politically advanced backward classes, effectively excluding the most backward, socially and economically destitute communities from adequate representation in urban local bodies. He further argued that communities falling under the BC-A category predominantly migrate to urban areas, and despite their visible presence in cities, municipal policies are framed without their participation, resulting in evictions, harassment, denial of welfare benefits and criminalisation of poverty. The petitioners further contended that if reservation meant for backward classes is monopolised by relatively advanced sub-castes to the exclusion of far more backward communities such as Gangireddula, Rajaka, Nayee Brahmana, Fisherman, Vaddera and Boya, the constitutional promise of meaningful equality under constitution of India would stand frustrated. After hearing the arguments, the panel directed the State to file its counter substantiating the validity of the impugned statutory provisions and the government order.