Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

A Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, while deciding on the question that whether Ahobilam Temple is a part and parcel of the Ahobilam Math or not, answered in affirmative, saying that,

"...the Ahobilam Temple is an integral and inseparable part of Ahobilam Math, which was established as a part of propagation of Hindu religion and for rendering spiritual service for propagating Sri Vaishnavism. The successive Jeeyars are the trustees of the Ahobilam Devasthanam and since the Government cannot appoint an Executive Officer for the Ahobilam Math, it has no power to appoint an Executive Officer for the Ahobilam Temple by treating it separate from the Math".

In the pertinent matter the petitioners claimed to be a devotee and a person interested in the Ahobilam Math and Temple. The appointment of an Executive Officer of Sri Ahobila Mutt Parampara Aadheena Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam was challenged, with an aim to restore the tradition of administration and operation of bank accounts by the Jeeyar of Sri Ahobila Mutt. 

Petitioner had referred to books, literature and archeological data to support their case, which the Court later found to be in support of their contentions, that the temple and math were founded and administered by the Mathadipathis since times immemorial.

Learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the entire dispute centers around the power of the State to appoint an Executive Officer for the Ahobilam Temple. Further that the State does not have the authority to appoint the Executive Officer for the Math or Temple as per the Endowments Act. Also contended that the Maths are given a special status and the right to manage their affairs and by appointing an Executive Officer the status and independence of the Mathadipathi is sought to be taken away.

The Counsel further submitted that the Math and the Temple are in fact inseparable and have existed as an integral unit from times immemorial. Further pointed out that the Temple situated in Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh is not a separate and distinct from the Ahobilam Math, which is presently based in Tamil Nadu, and are an integrated whole.

While the Advocate General had submitted that the Executive Officer was appointed long ago and that after passage of a long period of time, the action is being now challenged. And further argued that the Ahobilam Math and the Temple are separate and distinct entities, where the Math is situated in the State of Tamil Nadu, whereas the Temple is situated in Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the provisions of the Endowments Act of Andhra Pradesh apply to the Temple. Further drew distinction between the Math and the Temple, where it was pointed out that the Temple is a place of public religious worship unlike a Math that caters to a certain group or class of people, who are engaged in spiritual services etc. It was further pointed out that the Temple  gives unrestricted access to the people and the restrictions which are placed under the Act with regard to Math are not applicable to the temple.

The Bench thus opined, "that the posting of a Government servant in the Ahobilam Temple is not supported by any statutory provision or a rule. While it is a fact that there is some delay in the challenge of this appointment, the fact remains that this post of an Executive Officer is per se contrary to the provisions of the 1966 Act or the later Act. Therefore, on the ground of mere delay, this Court cannot approve the said decision since in the opinion of this Court it is void ab initio and in violation of constitutional right guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution of India".