Telangana HC Holds Temple Committees Amenable to Writ Jurisdiction, Remands Demolition and Fund Misuse Dispute to Endowments Authority
Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty ruled that registered societies managing a public temple discharge statutory duties under the Endowments Act and are therefore subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
The Telangana High Court has held that registered societies managing the Sri Kanyaka Parameshwari Devasthanam at Somasundaram Street, Avula Manda, Secunderabad, are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution because their functions under the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 carry the character of statutory and public duties. Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, sitting singly, disposed of Writ Petition No. 4182 of 2025 on 8 June 2026 by remanding the matter to the competent authority under the Endowments Act for a detailed factual enquiry. The petition had raised allegations of unauthorised demolition of the original temple structure, collection of approximately Rs. 16 crores from devotees without proper accounting, and relocation of the presiding deity's idol from the ground floor to the first floor without following prescribed religious rituals.
The Dispute Before the Court
The petitioner, Nagilla Srinivas, averred that the subject temple — constructed during the reign of the Nizams of the erstwhile Hyderabad State — has been managed by committees of the Arya Vysya community since 1946. The land on which it stands was leased under the Secunderabad and Aurangabad Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1930.
According to the writ affidavit, Sri Kanyaka Parameshwari Devasthana Sangam (respondent No. 8, referred to as Committee No. 1) was registered under Registration No. 161 of 1991 and managed the temple from 1991 to 2017. In 2017, members of Committee No. 1 allegedly resigned under coercion and threat. A second body with the same name (respondent No. 9, Committee No. 2) then claimed to be the original registered committee under the same registration number. Both committees asserted themselves to be the legitimate managing body, and disputes followed.
The petitioner alleged that Committee No. 2 and its sub-committee (respondent No. 10) collected approximately Rs. 16 crores from devotees for construction purposes, misused those funds, demolished the existing temple structure without obtaining necessary permissions, and relocated the idol of the deity from the ground floor to the first floor without performing the essential consecration rituals of Kumbh Abhishekam and Vighna Pratishtha. The petitioner had made representations to the Principal Secretary, Endowments Department on 24 April 2017, 25 March 2023, and 20 May 2024, and also to the Commissioner of GHMC, but alleged that no action was taken.
The petitioner's senior counsel additionally pointed to G.O.Ms. No. 177 dated 1 February 2006, which mandates resumption of leasehold properties where the lease has expired and no renewal application has been made. The lease over the temple land had expired in 1997, and no renewal steps were taken, making the committees' occupation of the land arguably unauthorised under that Government Order.
The Maintainability Question
Respondent Nos. 9, 10 and 11 contested the writ at the threshold. Their senior counsel argued that respondent No. 9 is a society registered under the Telangana Societies Registrations Act and respondent No. 10 is merely a sub-committee appointed by respondent No. 9. Neither, it was submitted, is a statutory authority falling under Article 12 of the Constitution, and neither discharges statutory duties or public functions that would make them amenable to writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was therefore said to be not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine.
Respondent Nos. 9 to 11 also challenged the petitioner's locus standi. The petitioner is not a member of Committee No. 2, and it was submitted that any aggrieved member of a society must approach the District Court under Section 23 of the applicable Act. It was further alleged that the petitioner's father, N. Gowri Shanker, who had been President of the Sangam since 2008, resigned voluntarily on 24 December 2016 and was later removed on account of financial irregularities, and that the writ petition was filed to cover up those irregularities.
The petitioner's senior counsel relied on a line of Supreme Court and High Court decisions to argue that mandamus is available even against private or corporate bodies where a public law element exists, and that the High Court has power to mould relief under Article 226 to remedy injustice. The judgments cited included Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsava Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan, and Nur Islam v. State of Assam, among others.
The court in Binny Ltd. had observed that “a writ of mandamus can be issued against a private body which is not ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12” provided there is a public law element. The court in Andi Mukta had held that “mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the duty to be enforced is not imposed by the statute.”
How the Court Reasoned on Maintainability
Justice Alishetty accepted that the writ petition was maintainable. The court's reasoning turned on the nature of the functions performed by the committees rather than their formal registration as societies.
The court observed that although respondent Nos. 9 to 11 are registered as societies, they are religious institutions and are therefore governed by the Endowments Act. That governance means they are bound to mandatorily follow the procedures, duties and obligations prescribed under the Act. Some of those duties, the court held, assume the character of statutory duties or public functions closely related to functions performed by the State in its sovereign capacity. That is sufficient to bring them within the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
The court did not accept the argument that the petitioner's lack of membership in Committee No. 2 was a bar. The writ petition was framed to protect the rights of devotees of the Arya Vysya community and to ensure proper administration of a public religious institution, which carries a public law dimension beyond the internal affairs of a registered society.
Factual Disputes Referred to the Endowments Authority
Having upheld maintainability, the court declined to resolve the underlying factual disputes itself. Several contested questions required detailed examination of documents and evidence.
On the question of the Stapathi's advice, respondent Nos. 9 to 11 stated that they had obtained advice from the Stapathi who designed the Yadadri temple, and that all religious rituals and ceremonies including consecration were followed during the translocation of the idol. They also offered a practical justification: the temple is situated in a low-lying area and gets inundated during the rainy season, making it necessary to shift the deity from the ground floor to the first floor.
On accounts and budget submissions, respondent Nos. 9 to 11 stated that all donations were properly accounted for and that they were ready to furnish accounts before the competent authority.
The Endowments Department, through the Government Pleader, placed material before the court showing that the Inspector, Endowments Department had issued notices on 5 January 2024, 12 February 2024, and 24 June 2024 directing the committees to furnish records, pay statutory dues, and immediately stop unauthorised construction. The committees did not comply. The Government Pleader listed six specific acts of maladministration: failure to obtain statutory permissions for demolition; no approval of construction plans from the Engineering Section of the Endowments Department; non-consultation with the Sthapathi, Vasthu and Silpi authorities under the Department; unauthorised razing of the old structure and construction of new structures; lack of audit of donations and unauthorised operation of bank accounts; and non-cooperation with Endowments Department officials during enquiry.
The court noted that the Endowments Department's issuance of notices showed that the plea of complete inaction by the authorities, as pleaded by the petitioner, was not accurate. At the same time, the court found that the rival claims on the Stapathi's advice, the performance of consecration rituals, and the GHMC permissions required detailed examination of documents that could not be undertaken in writ proceedings. Those questions were to be adjudicated by the competent authority under the Endowments Act.
The court held that since respondent Nos. 9 to 11 are religious institutions, any deviation from the Rules, Regulations and procedure under the Endowments Act during the governance of the temple amounts to mismanagement. The allegations of fund misuse and non-submission of budgets and audits were similarly characterised as issues for the competent authority under the Act, to be decided after verification of the entire evidence.
Order
Justice Alishetty disposed of the writ petition and remanded the matter to respondent No. 5 — the competent authority under the Endowments Act — with liberty to both parties to raise all issues agitated in the writ petition and to produce all relevant material. Respondent Nos. 9 to 11 were specifically directed to produce the statement of accounts, the Stapathi's advice, and all other documents relied upon by them in respect of the subject temple.
The competent authority was directed to conduct a detailed enquiry, afford an opportunity of hearing to both parties, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of the Endowments Act. The specific questions to be adjudicated include whether the Stapathi's advice was obtained before shifting the deity from the ground floor to the first floor, and whether the religious rituals of Kumbh Abhishekam and Vighna Pratishtha necessary for consecration and sanctification were performed before the newly constructed temple was opened.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, were closed. No costs were awarded.