1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the Memo No.17850/Endowments-II/A1/2008 dated 26.08.2013 issued by the respondent No.1 as illegal and arbitrary, to set aside the order dated 19.03.2008 passed in R.P.No.1056/2004 by the respondent No.3 and the Gazette Notification dated 21.09.1989 notifying the subject institution as a ‘Temple’ under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act, 1987’) and direct the respondent No.1 to notify in the office Gazettee that the petitioner Institution as a ‘Mutt’ under Section 6(d) of the Act, 1987.

2. Heard Sri M.R.S.Srinivas, learned Counsel for the petitioner-Mutt, Sri B. Mangilal Naik, learned Government Pleader for Endowments for the respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri W.B.Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K. Ramalingeswara Sarma and Ms. K. Kavya Sree, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and perused the material on record.

Contentions of the writ petitioner:

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Mutt submits that the petitioner-Mutt was established by late Guru Mahant Mohan Das Ji, who was the jagirdar and sole Mahant of the said Mutt and Sri Kyalikadas Mutt, Begum Bazar and it was registered with Endowment Department in F.No.16/2, Aukaf in the year, 1345 Fasli as per the Muntakhab Kitabul Aukaf prepared by the Director of Ecclesiastical Department of Sarkar Ali Government. In the said mutt, there are three Samadhis of late Guru Mohan Das Ji, late Guru Rambharose Das Ji and late Guru Moti Das Ji. After the death of Mahant Guru Moti Das Ji, Sri Mahant Rambharose Das was recognized as Mahant of petitioner-Mutt vide proceedings No.53/01/1957 dated 08.10.1960 issued by the Assistant Secretary, Board of Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh and the wife of Late Guru Mahant Moti Das Ji, namely Smt Hira Bai was appointed as guardian.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Sri Mahant Rambharose Das was also recognized as Mahant of the petitioner-Mutt by the Endowments Department by proceedings No.D-292/1993 dated 12.05.1995 basing on the earlier proceedings dated 08.10.1960 and since then, he has been discharging his duties and managing the Mutt. The respondent No.5 has filed a revision in R.P.No.1056 of 2004 under Section 92 of the Act, 1987 before the respondent No.3 against the said proceedings dated 12.05.1995 after 9 years from the date of the said proceedings without filing any condone delay petition and it is barred by limitation as the revision petition has to be filed within 90 days as per Section 92(4) of the Act, 1987. The respondent No.3 has passed order in R.P.No.1056 of 2004 dated 19.03.2008 by setting aside the order dated 12.05.1995.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that aggrieved by the order passed in R.P.No.1056 of 2004 dated 19.03.2008, the petitioner-Mutt has filed revision petition before the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 has dismissed the said revision vide Memo No.17850/Endts.II/A1/2008 dated 30.10.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-Mutt has filed W.P.No.28036 of 2008 and the same was allowed vide order dated 06.06.2011 setting aside the said memo by remitting the matter to the respondent No.1 for fresh disposal along with the revision filed by the petitioner-Mutt against the Notification of the subject institution under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act, 1987 in the A.P. Gazette on 21.09.1989. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 has issued the impugned Memo No.17850/ Endowments-II/A.1/2008 dated 26.08.2013 holding that the subject institution is a ‘Temple’ and not a ‘Mutt’ and ignored the amended prayer in the said revision petition to set aside the Gazette notification of the petitioner Mutt under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act of 1987 dated 21.09.1989.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per Section 2(18) of the Act of 1987, an individual must possess an interest in the endowment to be considered as ‘interested person and as the respondent No.5 has not submitted any documentary evidence to prove such interest, the revision petition filed by the respondent No.5 is not maintainable and ought to have dismissed due to lack of locus standi. He submits that the respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision filed by the respondent No.5 under Section 92 of the Act, 1987 against the order dated 12.05.1995. The petitioner-mutt was originally constituted by late Sri Guru Mahand Mohan Das Ji and as such the question of the petitioner-Mutt being treated as Temple under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act, 1987 does not arise.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 has failed to consider that the petitioner- Mutt was also established along with Sri Kyalikadas Mutt, Begum Bazar, which was recognized as a Mutt vide Proceedings R.Dis.No.J2/ 74061/81 under Section 6(d) of the Act, 1987 and recognizing one institution as ‘Mutt’ and petitioner-Mutt as a ‘Temple’ is nothing but discrimination against the petitioner-Mutt and contrary to the orders passed by the Government. He further submits that the petitioner institution is a Mutt as defined under Section 2(17) of the Act, 1987 as the Mahanth performs spiritual service like Pooja pat to the different deities and also the presence of the Samadhis, religious succession through Mahants and public documents like the Muntakab also support this classification. He further submits that the respondent No.1 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has issued the impugned memo.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner basing on the additional written arguments filed on 29.07.2025 and in para No.6 of additional written arguments, he submits that in para No.7 of the writ petition at page No.11, it was categorically stated about the amendment of the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the respondent No.1 and thus, it is not the case of the petitioner that he has filed two revision petitions before the respondent No.1 and thus, there are no two revisions filed by the petitioner and there is only one revision and the said revision filed on 19.04.2008 was amended on 22.04.2008. The respondent No.1 cannot contend that no other revision filed by the petitioner is pending. He further submits that the finding of the respondent No.1 in the said revision dated 22.04.2008 was already rejected, that itself shows non-application of mind as the order dated 30.10.2008 was already set aside by this Court in W.P.No.28036 of 2008 and therefore, the impugned Memo is liable to be set aside and requested to allow the writ petition.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following Judgments;

               1. Joseph Severance v. Benny Mathew ((2005) 7 SCC 667),

               2. Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley (2024 SCC OnLine SC 551),

               3. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District vs. D.Narsing Rao ((2015) 3 SCC 695),

               4. Veerayee Ammal vs. Seeni Ammal ((2002) 1 SCC 134),

               5. Canara Bank vs. V.K.Awasthy ((2005) 6 SCC 321),

               6. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Western GECO International Limited ((2014) 9 SCC 263),

               7. State of Orissa vs. M/s. Samantary Construction Pvt.Ltd. (2015 SCC OnLine SC 856),

               8. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt ((1954)1 SCC 412),

               9. Sardar Sarup Singh vs. State of Punjab (1959 SCC OnLine SC 194),

               10. Durgah Committee, Ajmer vs. Syed Hussain Ali (1961 SCC OnLine SC 121),

               11. Seshammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu ((1972) 2 SCC 11),

               12. Commissioner of Police vs. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta ((2004) 12 SCC 770),

               13. Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam vs. Government of Tamil Nadu ((2016) 2 SCC 725),

               14. Krishnadatt Awasthy vs. State of M.P. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 179),

               15. Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi ((1978) 1 SCC 405).

Contentions of official respondent Nos.1 to 4:

10. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments based on the counter filed by the official respondents submits that petitioner Institution is not Mutt and it is an age old Hanuman Temple situated near Goods Shed, Nampally, Hyderabad established by Sri Rama Bhakta Samajam in the year, 1937 by the then devotees belonging to all communities of the Society and it was registered in the Munthakab of Endowment Department vide File No.16/2 of 1345 Fasli in the year, 1936 and it was also published as Temple in the A.P.Gazette under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act, 1989. It is clearly evident from the Muntakab of the year 1345 Fasli in the year, 1936 itself that the subject institution was designated as ‘Temple’ but not as ‘Mutt’. He submits that in the statement of Endowment (Munthakab), name of Sri Ram Bharosedas was mentioned as ‘Mutawalli’ and ‘Mutawalli-Trustee’ means the person appointed by the Endowment Department for the purpose of management of the property and fulfillment of the objects of the person who might be donated or endowed and he has been nominated for appointment or may be appointed by the competent authority and therefore, Sri Ram Bharosedas was only a Trustee and not a Mahanth. He submits that there are no Samadhis in the temple and the question of worship of the Samadhis does not arise.

11. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments further submits that after due enquiry, the respondent No.3 has allowed R.P.No.1056 of 2004 dated 19.03.2008 observing that the institution is a Temple but not Mutt and after detailed enquiry and based on the material documents filed by the respondent No.5, the Government has issued the impugned memo by declaring the subject institution as ‘Temple’ but not ‘Mutt’. He further submits that the petitioner has no valid recognition of his status in any manner either as a Mahanth or as a Trustee under the provisions of Act 30 of 1987 and he is always misleading the facts with ulterior motive to grab the temple property under the guise of Mutt and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

Contentions of the respondent No.5:

12. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.5 based on the counter submits that the petitioner-Mutt was wrongly shown as Sri Ram Hanuman Mutt instead of Sri Ram Hanuman Deval and it was intentionally done with the connivance of revenue authorities with ulterior motive to grab the temple property. The subject temple was registered as Temple with the Endowment Department in File No.16/2, Aukaf in the year 1345 Fasli as per the Muntakab prepared by the then Director of Ecclesiological Department of Sarkar Ali Government. The respondent No.3 in R.P.No.1056 of 2004 dated 19.03.2008 has declared that the subject Institution is a ‘Temple’ but not a ‘Mutt’ by observing that the then Assistant Secretary, Board of Revenue Endowments ordering as a Mahant to the Temple has to be understood as a Trustee. He submits that the Commissioner, Endowment Department is the competent authority to recognize any person to appoint a Mahanth to the Mutt, but not Assistant Commissioner of Endowments as contained under Section 54 of the Act 30 of 1987 and as such the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments dated 12.05.1995 declaring the deponent of the writ petition as Mahanth of the temple were rightly set aside by the respondent Nos.1 and 3.

13. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.5 further submits that the respondent No.3 has categorically observed that the Deponent of the writ petitioner has filed a Rent Control Case before the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R.C.No.266 of 1980 stating that he was the Muthawalli of “Hanuman Temple’ bearing premises No.11-5-280 behind Goods Shed, Nampally, Hyderabad, against his tenant Munna Lal Agarwal for eviction from the rooms and Malgi belonging to the temple and this recorded evidence establishes that the petitioner is not a ‘Mutt’ and the deponent is not a Mahanth as claimed and further confirms that the subject institution is temple. The Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to recognize any Mahanth and the petitioner Institution is a Temple even according to Muntakab of the year 1345 Fasli and other records and it is Hanuman Deval and the original chela, Sri Ram Bharosa Das Chela Moti Das was a Mutawalli only i.e, a Trustee. The respondent No.3 also held that the Institution was published as Temple in the Gazette dated 21.09.1989 under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act 30 of 1987 and the Temple was dedicated to Lord Hanuman and other deities and observed that under Hyderabad Regulations 1349 Fasli, Mutawalli means only a Trustee and the respondent No.3 also held that the question of recognizing a Mahanth for a temple by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments does not arise at all and was not authorized in law.

14. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.5 further submits that as per the material papers filed by the petitioner at page No.48, which is a receipt given by the Endowment Department dated 31.08.2004 confirming that the subject institution is Sri Ram Hanuman Temple and he paid Rs.2,609/- to the Endowment Department. As per page Nos.152 to 155 i.e, the Statement of Income and Expenditure filed by the petitioner also stated that the subject institution as Sri Ram Hanuman Mutt Mandir. The Muntakab of the year 1935 (1345 Fasli), Gazette Notification of the year, 1937 (1346 Fasli) and other records filed by the petitioner at page Nos.118 to 126 clearly establishes that the subject institution is a Hanuman Temple and not a Mutt as described by the petitioner in the cause title and Ram Bharosha Das, Chela of Mohan Das was a Mutawalli and R/o.Deval/Temple and the Wakf is for Pooja pat and the Muntakab also shows that it is a temple and the land is the temple land and at page No.126 of the material papers also clear that the Institution is Deval Hunman Ji-Mahadev Ji as published in the Gazette Notification-1346 Fasli i.e., 1937 AD. He further submits that the proceedings dated 08.10.1960 of the Assistant Secretary, Endowments relied on by the petitioner clearly shows that Ram Bharosa Das S/o. Late Moti Das under the guardianship of Smt Hira Bai, widow of late Moti Das, as Mahanth of Sri Hanuman Temple, Nampallay and the word ‘Mahanth’ means only a ‘Trustee’ since there is no definition of ‘Mahanth’ separately in Hyderabad regulations and the same was also held by the respondent No.3 in the order dated 19.03.2008.

15. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.5 further submits that the respondent No.5 is a devotee of the subject institution and a regular worshipper of Lord Hanuman and is a ‘person interested’ as defined under Section 2(18) of the Act 30 of 1987 and therefore had locus to file the revision and the question of approaching the respondent No.3 belatedly does not arise at all since the respondent No.5 came to know about the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments dated 12.05.1995 only on 27.08.2004 when he applied for the certified copy of the same and immediately on receipt of certified copy on 11.09.2004, he filed the revision on 14.09.2004 within time. Even otherwise, the order dated 12.05.1995 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments is without jurisdiction and it can be questioned immediately after its knowledge as per law. The Sections 53 and 54 of the Act 30 of 1987 clearly state that the recognition of a Mahanth/Matadipathi should be done with the permission of the competent authority i.e. Commissioner of Endowments at the relevant point of time on 12.05.1995 where the orders were passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments who was not competent to recognize a Mahanth.

16. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.5 further submits that the contention of the petitioner that he has filed two revisions before the Government is incorrect since the Government clearly stated that there is only one revision pending before it. In Para No.11 of the counter also clearly states that the petitioner filed W.P.No.28036 of 2008 questioning the Government Memo dated 30.10.2008 concealing the true facts and stating that another revision was pending before the Government filed by him and the Government has passed orders in only one revision dated 30.10.2008 and on that ground, the Writ Petition was disposed of on 06.06.2011 setting aside the Memo dated 30.10.2008 and directed the Government to dispose of the matter afresh along with the revision filed by the petitioner against the Notification of the subject Institution under Section 6(c )(ii) of the Act 30 of 1987 published in AP Gazette on 21.09.1989. The petitioner contended that he has filed two revisions dated 19.04.2008 and 22.04.2008 and revision dated 22.04.2008 was disposed of on 30.10.2008 without disposing of the revision dated 19.04.2008. In the impugned proceedings dated 26.08.2013, the respondent No.1 clearly gave detailed reasons observing that the revision dated 22.04.2008 was rejected by the Government on 30.10.2008 and there was no second revision dated 19.04.2008 available on record. However, as per the directions of this Court in W.P.No.28036 of 2008, the Government has again examined the matter and since the representation/revision dated 22.04.2008 and the revision filed questioning the order of the respondent No.3 dated 19.03.2008, examined the matter in detail and finally upheld the orders of the respondent No.3 dated 19.03.2008 clearly holding that the subject institution is a ‘Temple’ and not a ‘Mutt’ and the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments has no power to declare the petitioner as a Mahanth and there cannot be a Mahanth for a temple.

17. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.5 further submits that the order dated 06.06.2011 in W.P.No.28036 of 2008 did not adjudicate any rights whatsoever in favour of the petitioner and it was only an order passed remitting back the matter to the Government for reconsideration of its order dated 30.10.2008. In terms of the direction of this Court, the Government has issued the impugned memo observing that the alleged revision said to have been filed was not at all on record, however since the earlier revision filed by him was on identical issue, passed a reasoned order upholding the orders of the respondent No.3 dated 19.03.2008 clearly holding that the subject institution is a temple comprising of Lord Rama, Sita, Lakshmana and Shiva deities and there is no Mutt and accordingly dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner.

18. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.5 further submits that the question of setting aside the Gazette Notification notifying the institution as Temple in the year, 1989 cannot be agitated at this length of time and no such revision was filed before the Government. He further submits that the respondent No.1 after considering the matter in detail and after due enquiry has issued the impugned Memo confirming the earlier Memo No.17850/Endowments/II/ A1/2008 dated 30.10.2008 and also the order passed by the respondent No.3-Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department in R.P.No.1056/2004 dated 19.03.2008 and upheld that the subject institution is an old Hanuman Temple and there is no infirmity in the impugned memo warranting interference by this Court and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

19. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.5 has relied on the following Judgments;

               1. Tripuraneni Jyostnasri rep. by her G.P.A. Kotha Satyanarayana vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endts-I) Department (2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 554),

               2. M/s. Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt.Ltd., vs. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee (2022 SCC OnLine SC 568),

               3. Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta vs. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala Sitapur (U.P) (1987 4 SCC 525),

               4. Kiran Singh vs. Chaman Paswan ((1954) 1 SCC 710),

               5. Axis Bank Limited vs. Natural Bioenergy Ltd. (2012 0 Supreme (AP) 463).

Consideration and findings:

20. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the main issue in the writ petition is whether the petitioner Institution is ‘Temple’ or ‘Mutt’. In the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner has approached this Court and filed W.P.No.28036 of 2008 questioning the order passed in Revision Petition No.1056 of 2004 dated 19.03.2008 by the respondent No.3-Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad and the consequential Memo No.17850/Endowments-II/A1/2008 dated 30.10.2008 issued by the respondent No.1 declaring the petitioner Institution as ‘Temple’ and the same was allowed by setting aside the said Memo and remitted the matter back to the respondent No.1 for reconsideration.

21. At the time of disposal of W.P.No.28036 of 2008, this Court observed that the subject Institution was notified as a religious Institution under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act, 1987 in the A.P.Gazettee published on 21.09.1989 and as per pleadings, the petitioner has filed a revision before the Government questioning the said notification under Section 93 of the Act on 19.04.2008 and the same is pending for consideration.

22. The relevant portion of the Order in W.P.No.28036 of 2008 is as follows:

               “xxxxx

               Pertinent to note, by the time the Government of Andhra Pradesh passed orders in the said revision under the impugned Memo dated 30.10.2008, the revision filed on 19.04.2008 by the petitioner against the notification of the subject institution under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act of 1987 was already pending before it. It would therefore have been proper and apposite for the Government to club both the revisions and pass comprehensive orders adjudicating the issue. The passing of orders in one revision to the exclusion of the other inevitably rendered the second superfluous. The Government practically foreclosed the issue pending before it in the other revision by its order in this revision. Needless to state, whether the subject institution is a ‘math’ or a ‘temple’ would have to be determined by the authorities with reference to the wider definition of a ‘religious institution’ under Section 2(23) and the definition of a ‘math’ under Section 2(17) of the Act of 1987. The mere incidence of religious worship would not, by itself, be conclusive or determinative of the status of the institution. All the other aspects which find mention in the statute would necessarily have to be kept in mind while deciding this issue. This crucial aspect must therefore be borne in mind by the authorities while resolving the dispute as to the status of the subject institution.

               As the revision filed by the petitioner against the notification of the subject institution under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act of 1987 is still pending consideration, this Court is of the opinion that the independent and separate disposal of the revision, which is the subject matter of this writ petition, was not proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Memo dated 30.10.2008 is accordingly set aside without going into the merits of the case and the matter is remitted to the Government of Andhra Pradesh for joint adjudication and disposal along with the revision filed by the petitioner against the notification of the subject institution under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act of 1987 in the A.P. Gazette on 21.09.1989. As the issue has been kept unresolved for sufficiently long, it is in the interest of the parties as well as the institution that it be resolved expeditiously. The Government of Andhra Pradesh is therefore directed to give priority to these revisions and dispose of the same in accordance with law within four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

23. In view of the remanding matter, the respondent No.1 has re-opened the matter and gave a finding in the impugned order in Memo No.17850/Endts.II/A1/2008 dated 26.08.2013 and the relevant portion is as follows;

               “On perusal of the file, it is noticed that only one Revision Petition filed by Sri Rambgharose Das received in Government with date stamp on 22.04.2008 and the same was disposed of by Government vide Memo No.17850/Endts.II/A.I/2008 dated 30.10.2008. There is no such revision petition dated 19.04.2008 filed by Sri Ram Hanuman Mutt, Nampally, pending in Government.

               However, the Revision Petition received in Government with date stamp on 22.04.2008 was taken up for hearing on 06.06.2013. The arguments of Advocate representing the petitioner (Sri Ram Hanuman Temple) and counsel for Sri Pilli Gurumurthy (the respondent in the revision petition) Officers on behalf of Government, Commissioner and Regional Joint Commissioner, Hyderabad were heard. After examination of available record on file, it is observed that already the representation dated 22.04.2008 was rejected by the Government and as stated by the Counsel for Sri Pilli Gurumurthy and Officers from Commissionerate and Government, the representation dated 19.04.2008 is not available for disposal. However, as revealed by both the parties, the issue is similar i.e., to set aside the order dated 19.03.2008 of Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-III, Hyderabad.

               The respondents informed that there is an old Hanuman Temple along with Lord Sri Rama, Sita Devi, Laxmana and Shiva Temple. After hearing the arguments from both sides and examination of records on file, it is ascertained that the temples are existing and hence no Mahanth can be declared when there is no Mutt. Accordingly, the request of the petitioner is not accepted as the case is disposed off”.

24. Initially after hearing both sides, the instant writ petition was reserved for orders on 28.07.2025 and thereafter, the same was listed for clarification on 04.09.2025 in view of the observation that the petitioner has relied on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.28036 of 2008 dated 06.06.2011, wherein this Court has set aside the earlier order passed by the respondent No.1 dated 30.10.2008 and remanded the matter to the respondent No.1 for adjudication along with the other revision petition filed by the petitioner. In the additional written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner on 29.07.2025, it was stated that the petitioner has not filed two revisions, but he filed only amendment petition in the earlier revision petition in para No.6. In view of the same, it is necessary to verify the affidavit and material papers filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.28036 of 2008 and directed to file the record of W.P.No.28036 of 2008.

25. Thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed material papers in W.P.No.28036 of 2008 containing (118) pages on 18.09.2025. After hearing both sides, posted for orders on 06.10.2025. In the said material papers at page 27 shows that the writ petitioner has filed revision on 19.04.2008 with office seal, but the respondent No.4 in his counter stated that the writ petitioner has filed revision petition on 22.04.2008 but not on 19.04.2008. In view of the same, listed the matter on 03.11.2025 and this Court has directed the learned Government Pleader for Endowments to produce the original record pertaining to the revision petition filed by the writ petitioner before the respondent No.1 against the orders passed by the respondent No.3 in R.P.No.1056/2004 dated 19.03.2008. On 08.12.2025, Sri B. Anurag, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the learned Additional Advocate General has produced the original record pertaining to File No.C/17850/Endowments-II/A1/2008.

26. The contention of the writ petitioner is that the petitioner has challenged the Notification of the subject temple issued under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act, 1987 in A.P.Gazette No.36-A dated 21.09.1989, but the same was not considered by the respondent No.1 in the impugned order. In fact, the writ petitioner has filed revision petition under Section 93 of the Act, 1987 against the impugned order in R.P.No.1056/2004 dated 19.03.2008 passed by the respondent No.3-Regional Joint Commissioner and the notice received on 04.04.2008. The original record shows that the petitioner has initially filed revision along with stay petition without impleading the respondent No.5 herein/the petitioner in the revision petition before the respondent No.3 on 10.04.2008 and the same was shown in the original file at page Nos.45 to 70. Thereafter, the writ petitioner has filed amendment of cause title by filing I.A., on 22.04.2008 by adding the name of the respondent No.5 herein as the respondent No.3 and also replacing the name of the respondent No.3 Sri Hanuman Bhajan Mandali as the respondent No.4 in the main cause title of the revision and the stay petition along with the amended fair copy of the revision petition as well as stay petition and the same was at page Nos.9 to 34 of the original file. The said amended fair copy and also the original revision filed on 10.04.2008. The prayer of the revision is as follows;

               “Hence, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the revision petition by setting aside the impugned order in R.P.No.1056/2004 dated 19.03.2008 by the respondent No.1 in respect of Sri Ram Hanuman Mutt, Goodsheds Road, Near Nampally, Hyderabad and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case”

27. The writ petitioner has earlier filed W.P.No.28036 of 2008 and filed amended fair copy of the revision petition along with the material papers of the writ petition at page Nos.27 to 36 showing the receiving stamp on 19.04.2008 at 5.00 PM. At page No.36 of the said material papers also shows the same prayer as extracted above. The said writ petition was disposed of on 06.06.2011 as discussed in the earlier paragraphs, on the ground that the writ petitioner has challenged the Notification issued under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act, 1987 in the A.P.Gazette No.36-A dated 21.09.1989 declaring the petitioner Institution as ‘Temple’ under the Act, 1987 in Revision Petition filed on 19.04.2008 pending before the respondent No.1.

28. After remanding the matter, the respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order stating that there is no second revision petition pending before the respondent No.1 and the orders passed earlier are only in one revision petition filed by the petitioner received by the Government with stamp dated 22.04.2008 and the same was disposed of by the Government on 30.10.2008 and there is no such revision petition dated 19.04.2008 filed by the petitioner pending before the Government.

29. The petitioner in the instant writ petition is questioning the impugned order and filed the so called amended fair copy of the revision petition in the material papers at page Nos.183 to 192 without any stamp and date and stated that the petitioner has questioned the Notification of subject Institution under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act, 1987 published in A.P.Gazette No.36-A dated 21.09.1989 in respect of the petitioner-Mutt. The note file of the original record in page No.27 at para 96 dated 05.03.2013 shows that the said copy filed by the petitioner through representation dated 21.11.2012 received by the respondent No.1 on 27.11.2012 along with a photo copy of revision petition, receiving date as 19.04.2008 with office seal at page Nos.227 to 240 of original file first time. There is no original copy of revision petition with office seal date 19.04.2008 with the respondent No.1- Government. After disposal of W.P.No.28036/2008 on 06.06.2011, the petitioner made application for early disposal of the revision petition along with photo copy of revision petition for amendment of prayer with stamp dated 19.04.2008.

30. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that the respondent No.1 while passing impugned orders has not taken into account of challenge against the Notification declaring the subject Institution as ‘Temple’ by the petitioner, but the photo copy of the revision filed in W.P.No.28036 of 2008 at page Nos.27 to 36 of the material papers filed by the writ petitioner on 18.09.2025 showing the same office seal on 19.04.2008 and the prayer in the revision is as follows;

               “Hence, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the revision petition by setting aside the impugned order in R.P.No.1056/2004 dated 19.03.2008 by the respondent No.1 in respect of Sri Ram Hanuman Mutt, Goodsheds Road, Near Nampally, Hyderabad and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case”

               Before disposal of W.P.No.28036 of 2008, there was no amendment of prayer for challenging the Notification issued under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act, 1987 in the original file of the respondent No.1 with the same date. But, the photo copy of revision filed along with the representation dated 21.11.2012 with following prayer;

               “Hence, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow revision petition by setting aside the impugned order in R.P.No.1056/2004 dated 19.03.2008 by the respondent No.1 and the Notification of the subject institution under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act, 1987 in the A.P.Gazettee on 21.09.1989 in respect of Sri Ram Hanuman Mutt represented by its Mahant Rambharose Das and pass such other order as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

31. The above two prayer portions are different from each other. But the writ petitioner has filed material papers as copy of revision petition before this Court in W.P.No.28036 of 2008 and he filed representation on 21.11.2012 along with copy of revision petition before the respondent No.1 were different. Moreover the petitioner failed to file any original copy with official seal of the respondent No.1 belonging to the revision filed by the petitioner on 19.04.2008 by challenging the Notification issued under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act, 1987. The writ petitioner at the time of disposal of W.P.No.28036 of 2008 has stated that the revision petition is pending before the respondent No.1 questioning the Notification issued under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act, 1987. Surprisingly in the additional written arguments dated 29.07.2025 at para 6 states that the writ petitioner filed Revision on 19.04.2008 and amendment of fair copy filed on 22.04.2008 for challenging the Notification. The said submission is contrary to the original record.

32. While filing this writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he has not filed two revision petitions but filed petition for amendment of prayer in the revision for challenging the Notification issued under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act, 1987. In fact, the petitioner has not challenged the Notification. The record shows that the respondent No.1 has not received the amendment petition in the revision petition filed by the writ petitioner by challenging the Notification and for the reasons best known, the petitioner has filed different copies of amended fair copies before this Court and before the respondent No.1 and taken different stands.

33. The writ petitioner has not challenged the Notification issued under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act, 1987 declaring the Hanuman Temple in Gazettee Notification No.36-A dated 21.09.1989 and thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments has recognized Sri Rambharose Das as Mahant of subject institution in Rc.D-292/1993 dated 12.05.1995. The respondent No.3 and the respondent No.1 have rightly gave a finding that merely basing on the representation of Sri Rambharose Das dated 20.04.1995, the then Assistant Commissioner of Endowments has recognized him as Mahant to the temple. Basing on the said proceedings, now the petitioner cannot claim the Institution as ‘Mutt’ and not a ‘Temple’ which was recognized under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act, 1987 through Gazette No.36-A dated 21.09.1989.

34. The respondent No.3 has categorically held that the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments has no power to recognize deponent of the petitioner as Mahant to the Institution i.e., Sri Hanuman Temple and the petitioner herein has accepted that the Institution was published in A.P.Gazette No.36-A under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act,1987 dated 21.09.1989 as ‘Temple’ and the question of appointment of Mahant to a Temple does not arise, as the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments can only the appoint trustee in the revision filed by the respondent No.5 in R.P.No.1056/2004 dated 19.03.2008 and the said finding has rightly upheld by the respondent No.1 in the impugned memo.

35. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent No.5 has no locus standi to challenge the proceedings issued by the respondent No.4 in Rc.D- 292/1993 dated 12.05.1995 cannot be acceptable as the respondent No.5 is having interest over the subject Institution as per Section 2(18)(b) of the Act, 1987.

36. Once the petitioner Institution was declared as Temple under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act,1987 through A.P. Gazette No.36-A on 21.09.1989, the respondent No.4- Assistant Commissioner of Endowments has recognized Sri Rambharose Das as Mahant vide Proceedings No.D- 292/1993 dated 12.05.1995 without power and jurisdiction and the said order is void. In view of the same, questioning the said proceedings by the respondent No.5 by filing revision before the respondent No.3 even after lapse of nine (9) years is maintainable as it is settled law that void order can be questioned at any stage as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Brundaban Sharma (1995 Supp (3) SCC 249).

37. Unless the writ petitioner has challenged the Notification issued under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act, 1987 independently it cannot be declared that the petitioner Institution as ‘Mutt’. Moreover, the writ petitioner without questioning the Notification issued under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act, 1987 independently, has claimed that by amendment of prayer in the revision petition filed under Section 93 of the Endowments Act while challenging the orders passed under Section 92 of the Act, 1987 in R.P.No.1056/2004 dated 19.03.2008 challenged the Notification. The said contentions cannot be taken into account as there is no proper petition filed by the petitioner as per original records and material papers filed by the petitioner and in view of the same, the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 are valid as the same were passed after hearing the both sides and taking into account of the respective contentions of the both sides and there is no need to interfere with by this Court.

38. The number of Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the unofficial respondents have no relevancy to the facts of the case as the writ petitioner has taken different stands before this Court in earlier proceedings and in the instant writ petition. Moreover the documents filed by the writ petitioner in the earlier writ petition and in the instant writ petition and also the original record are not tallying with the prayers in Revision Petition. It shows that the writ petitioner came before this Court with unclean hands and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

39. In view of the above findings, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

40. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.