VIJAYAWADA: Andhra Pradesh high court on Wednesday suspended two orders of the state government appointing 52 special invitees to the board of the country’s richest temple trust - Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD). The court suspended the orders after three public interest litigations (PIL) challenged the appointments.
The high court bench headed by Chief Justice Arup Kumar Goswami and Justice Ninala Jayasurya issued notices to the state government and TTD observing that prima facie the government orders were not in consonance with section 96 of the Endowments Act. Suspending the operation of both orders, the judges posted the case for hearing after four weeks.
The state government had on September 15 issued two orders appointing 52 members as special invitees to the trust board apart from order 245 appointing 28 persons as the members of the board.
With one ex-officio member, the strength of the board for the first time ever reached 81. The previous board had 37 members.
Kalyanadurgam unit TDP incharge M Umamaheswara Naidu and Hindu Jana Shakti Sangh had moved separate PILs challenging the appointment of special invitees and BJP functionary and former member of TTD board G Bhanuprakash Reddy moved another PIL.
Arguing on behalf of Naidu, advocate Y Balaji said that according to section 96 of Endowments Act, the TTD board members should not exceed 29. He argued that there was no provision for appointing special invitees in the Act. He said appointment of special invitees and extending special privileges will compromise the independence of the board.
Advocate general S Sriram told the bench that the legislation put no bar on appointing special invitees and that there were legal precedents. Special invitees promoted TTD and tourism across the country as the members were experts from various walks of life, he said. As they were not given any power in decision-making, there could not be any opposition to the government decision, he added.
Arguing on behalf of TTD, senior counsel S S Prasad said that the PILs were not maintainable as the petitioners directly approached the court without giving any representation to get clarifications and redress their grievances.
Representing Bhanuprakash Reddy, advocate N Ashwani Kumar said some of the members had criminal cases against them. However, the bench asked as to why the members against whom the allegations are made were not included as respondents, Ashwani Kumar sought time for impleading them as respondents. Allowing his request, the high court posted the matter for further hearing after two weeks.
