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

Hyderabad:Justice K. Sarath of the Telangana High Court ruled that Sri Ram Hanuman Mutt, Nampally, was a temple and not a Mutt and upheld the orders passed by the endowments department classifying it as such under the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act. The judge dismissed upheld the Gazette Notification issued on September 21, 1989, specifying that the institution was 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 petitioner had contended 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 argued that the endowments authorities had 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 B. Mangilal Naik for the respondent vehemently argued that in the Munthakab of 1345 Fasli, the institution was described as a temple, and the petitioners were misrepresenting facts to grab temple property. The judge ruled that the assistant commissioner of endowments lacked jurisdiction to recognise a Mahant for a temple and that the 1995 proceedings recognising anyone as Mahant were void, ultra vires, and without authority of law. It was further observed that once an institution stood notified as a temple, the question of appointing a Mahant did not arise. The judge 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 remained 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.

Revenue Officials Fined Rs 5,000

Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti of the Telangana High Court imposed costs of `5,000 on revenue authorities for their lackadaisical approach in filing counter affidavits and complying with the directions of the court. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by P. Hanumantha Rao and others challenging inaction of revenue authorities in issuing appropriate proceedings certifying that the land of about 5 acres at Thimmapur of Kothuru mandal, Mahbubnagar district, was 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 and the procedural discipline under the Code of Civil Procedure. The judge noted that, despite repeated opportunities, the officer concerned 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.

HC: Juniors cannot supercede esniors

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court voiced disapproval at the the “pick-and-choose” policy adopted by the AP Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (APIIDC) 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 had joined APIIDC as a junior stenographer in 1981 and rose 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 in 2007. The APIIDC 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 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 was the dominant consideration and comparative merit has no role unless the senior-most eligible officer is found unsuitable. The judge noted that APIIDC 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 APIIDC was without authority of law, and that such an approach was arbitrary and constitutionally impermissible.

Plea challenges BC quota process

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea challenging the constitutional validity of provisions granting reservation to the Backward Classes community in urban local body elections without sub-categorisation and implementation of sub-categorisation in the forthcoming elections to 121 municipalities 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 was hearing a writ petition filed by Mangali Chinna Adi Murthy and others. It was the case of the petitioner that Sections 7, 28 and 29 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 and government order issued on January 13, provided reservations without classifying the BC community into BC-A, BC-B, BC-C and BC-D groups. The petitioners contended that the impugned provisions ran contrary to the long-standing reservation policy of state in force for over 56 years. The petitioner pointed out that the government order issued on September 23, 1970, classified the Backward Classes community 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 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 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 Brahmin, 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.