Subba Reddy Satti, J.

1. The present writ petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

"...issue a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus of any other appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in sanctioning Rs. 100 lakhs as per Item No. 18 agenda dated 14.10.2021 for reconstruction of Sri Seetharama Swamy Vari Temple at Gundemadakala Village, Vinjamuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District at the behest of the 5th respondent committee as bad, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21, 25 & 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent Trust not to release the amount of Rs. 100 lakhs to the 5th respondent committee and direct the respondents not to demolish the temple and pass such other order or orders..."

2. Averments in affidavit, in brief, are that Sri Seetha Ramanjaneya Swamy Temple was constructed and developed by the grandfather of petitioner by name Late Sri Chimala Venkata Reddy. After the death of grandfather of petitioner, father of petitioner by name Narayana Reddy managed the affairs of the temple. Thereafter, petitioner has been managing the affairs of the temple. One Obul Reddy formed respondent No. 5 committee without the knowledge of petitioner. Respondent No. 5 committee with the help of local member of legislative assembly submitted representation to respondent No. 4 for sanction of Rs. 100 lakhs i.e. Rs. 80 lakhs + Rs. 20 lakhs of public contribution for renovation/reconstruction of temple.

(a) Respondent No. 5 supported by local MLA, have influenced the respondent No. 4-Trust and got sanction of Rs. 1 crore vide agenda at Item No. 18 dated 14.10.2021. The Chief Engineer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (for short "TTD") has sent communication dated 31.10.2021, to respondent No. 5 informing that Srivani Trust has sanctioned Rs. 100 lakhs and to pay contribution 25%, to take up the work by the Endowments Department by inviting tenders. The constitution of respondent No. 5 committee is only to misuse the funds. Villagers' submitted representation dated 20.10.2021, to the petitioner about sanction. Petitioner immediately submitted representation dated 09.11.2021 and 11.11.2021 respectively, to the Chairman of TTD Trust Board; MLA, Udayagiri; District Collector, SPSR Nellore District and the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Nellore District informing that there is no temple by name Sri Seetha Rama Swamy Temple and it is Sri Seetha Ramanjaneya Swamy Temple and the temple was constructed by the ancestors of the petitioner.

(b) Petitioner also sent email to the Officials along with photographs and, also opinion of licensed structural engineer, Kavali Municipality, who inspected the temple and certified that the structure life is around 10 to 14 years. The temple is published under Section 6(c) of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short "The Act") and hence, the private committee is nothing to do with the temple affairs. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Respondent No. 5 filed counter affidavit. It was contended inter-alia, that petitioner is residing at Hyderabad. Petitioner never participated in day-to-day affairs of the temple, and he occasionally visits the temple and participates in hereditary rituals. Petitioner was not recognized as hereditary trustee of the temple. Grama Sabha was conducted on 11.10.2021. Respondent No. 5 was elected as honorary president of the committee and petitioner was elected as president of the renovation committee. Villagers' of Gundemadakala Village have contributed 25% and it was kept in bank account bearing No. 91144332139 of Andhra Pragathi Bank, as per pre-condition for release of 75% of amount from respondent No. 4. The fund will be released by the Deputy Executive Engineer (General) duly following financial assistance under TTD, after receipt of public contribution of Rs. 20 lakhs. The Engineer of Andhra Pradesh Endowments Department will invite tenders for renovation work. The work proposed is only laying black granite stone in RCC framework for Garbhalayam and ardhamandapam etc. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Though, counter affidavit was filed on 24.03.2023, the resolution of Grama Sabha dated 11.10.2021 is filed on 21.08.2023.

5. Respondent No. 3 filed counter affidavit. It was contended, inter-alia, that the temple was published under Section 6(c) of the Act. None, except those appointed under Section 17 or Section 29 of the Act can claim to be in management of the temple. The amount is sanctioned for renovation of temple with 25% contribution from the locals. The renovation work will be carried out by the Endowments Department of the Government by following tender process. Department will release amount to the contractor. The sanction was accorded, by considering the estimates, after following bye laws, procedure and Rules of Srivani Trust. It was brought to the notice of TTD that the temple is 100 years old, and it is in dilapidated condition. The Villagers are willing to contribute estimated cost for renovation. After getting sanction, the letter dated 31.10.2021 was communicated to the president of the temple committee for payment of public contribution. After due inspection of the temple by the engineers, the requirements were assessed in accordance with relevant procedure and guidelines. The amount was sanctioned keeping in view of the objects of the Trust. The amount sanctioned will not be paid to the temple committee or to the individuals and the same will be paid from time to time based on the progress of work. The estimates were prepared by the Assistant Sthapathi of the Endowments Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Nellore has certified that the temple is published under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act. The temple is under the control of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Nellore. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. It was contended inter-alia, that petitioner is not recognized as founder family member of the said temple by the competent authority. Petitioner ancestors also were not recognized as founder family member of institution. O.A. No. 840 of 2022 filed by the petitioner under Section 87(1)(h) of the Act, 30 of 1987, to declare him as founder family member, is pending before the Tribunal. Hence, petitioner cannot claim as member of founder family of the said temple. Temple was published under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act 30 of 1987 and the same is under the administrative control of the Endowments Department. Temple was registered under Section 43 of the Act, 1987, and the same was approved by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Nellore on 23.03.2020. The District Endowments Officer visited the temple on 19.08.2023, and submitted the report dated 21.08.2023. Festivals and management of the temple is being done by Ubhayakarthas. Salary of Archaka is Rs. 60,000/-per annum and salary of Sweeper is Rs. 6,000/-per annum and salaries are being paid from the contributions collected from Ubhayakarthalu. With effect from October 2022, under Dhoopa Deepa Naivedyam Scheme, an amount of Rs. 5,000/-per month is being paid by the Endowments Department to Archaka of the subject temple in the ratio of Rs. 3,000/-per month towards remuneration to Archaka and Rs. 2,000/-per month towards paditharam.

(a) Ubhayakarthalu made contributions to a tune of Rs. 11 lakhs and constructed a strong room for safe custody of Panchaloha Utsava Murthies and jewellery of the Deities. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, SPSR Nellore District has personally visited the subject temple and noticed that the reconstruction of the temple is essential, as walls of Garbhalayam and outer walls developed some cracks and the ceiling of the subject temple also got damaged. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

7. Petitioner filed two affidavits on 03.07.2023 and 14.08.2023 respectively. Petitioner contended that the petitioner himself is ready to contribute an amount of Rs. 1 crore for reconstruction of the temple and the reconstruction will be commenced after Sankranthi Festival in the year 2024, as per suggestions of pundits.

8. The point for consideration is :

"Whether sanction of Rs. 1 crore as per Item No. 18 Agenda dated 14.10.2021, for reconstruction of Sri Seetharama Swamyvari temple at Gundemadakala Village, Vinjamuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District is violative of Article 14, 21, 25 & 300A of Constitution of India"

9. Mandamus, at common law, is a highly prerogative writ, usually issued out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to their office or duty.

10. For issuance of Writ of Mandamus, petitioner should satisfy the Court qua the infringement of his/her legal right and corresponding legal obligation on the part of the State or its instrumentality.

11. In State of U.P. and others Vs. Harish Chandra and others (1996) 9 SCC 309, [LQ/SC/1996/796] the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

"10 ...Under the Constitution, a mandamus can be issued by the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition."

12. In Union of India Vs. S.B. Vohra (2004) 2 SCC 150, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the similar issue and held that for issuing a writ of mandamus in favour of a person, the person claiming, must establish his legal right in himself. Then only a writ of mandamus could be issued against a person, who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so.

13. In Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain (2008) 2 SCC 280, [LQ/SC/2008/31] the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity to establish existence of legal right and its infringement for grant of Writ of Mandamus referred the principles stated in the Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferris, Jr.:

"Note 187.-Mandamus, at common law, is a highly prerogative writ, usually issuing out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to their office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said that mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from the proper court, commanding the official or board to which it is addressed to perform some specific legal duty to which the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to have performed.

Note 192.-Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and inferior bodies and tribunals exercising public functions within their jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law duty.

Note 196.-Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the court, subject always to the well settled principles which have been established by the courts. An action in mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on one side and not denied on the other are taken as true, and judgment pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Before granting the writ the court may, and should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned-an interest which private litigants are apt to overlook when striving for private ends. The court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances."

14. In Mani Subrat Jain Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1977 SC 276 [LQ/SC/1976/483] , while considering scope of Article 226 of the Constitution, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:

9"...It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right there must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. (See Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Ed. Vol I, paragraph 122); State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander, AIR 1973 SC 2216 [LQ/SC/1973/190] ; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan, Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed, AIR 1976 SC 578 [LQ/SC/1975/540] ) and Ferris Extraordinary Legal Remedies paragraph 198."

15. A conspectus of the expressions of Hon'ble Apex Court would discern that a writ of mandamus will be granted only in case where there is a statutory duty imposed against the officer concerned and failure on the part of the officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The aggrieved party should satisfy the legal right under statute and its infringement.

16. In the case at hand, petitioner described himself as founder family member of Sri Seetha Rama Swamy Vari Temple, Gundemadakala Village. In support of said contention, petitioner filed Section 43 Register. A perusal of 43 Register filed along with the writ petition, would disclose that the temple was constructed by the grandfather of petitioner. After the death of grandfather, father of petitioner and thereafter, petitioner has been managing the affairs of the temple. Name of Archaka of the temple is Sri V.Sudhakar and name of sweeper is Smt. Gurram Ramanamma.

17. It is pertinent to mention here that the salary of Archaka and sweeper is being paid by collecting donations from the villagers and Ubhayakarthalu. Bramhothsavam, on the eve of Sri Ramana Navami will be performed. Persons' belonging to different sects are conducting the Bramhothsavams. Petitioner singed in the register as 'person in management'. Thus, petitioner cannot claim the status of founder family member of the temple, unless the Tribunal grants such a declaration.

18. In fact, petitioner also filed O.A. No. 840 of 2022 under Section 87(1)(h) of the Act, 30 of 1987, to declare him as founder family member and the same is pending before the Tribunal. Even before the declaration by the competent tribunal, petitioner filed the above writ petition describing himself as founder family member of the institution. In the affidavit, nothing was mentioned about filing of O.A. No. 840 of 2022 under Section 87(1)(h) of the Act, 30 of 1987 before the Tribunal, to declare him as founder family member.

19. The grievance of petitioner as seen from the affidavit is that without consulting him, respondent No. 5 committee was constituted, and the committee made representation to respondent No. 4 for renovation/re-construction of the temple and respondent No. 4 accorded sanction vide Resolution No. 18 dated 14.10.2021.

20. It is pertinent to mention here that Grama Sabha was conducted in Sri Seetha Rama Swamy Temple, Gundemadakala Village at 09.00 am., on 11.10.2021. Purpose of conducting of Grama Sabha is to elect committee for reconstruction/renovation of the temple. One Obul Reddy was elected as honorary president and petitioner was elected as president. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 5, in Para No. 5, it was specifically stated about conducting Grama Sabha and electing the petitioner as president of the renovation committee. Petitioner did not file any rejoinder to question the same. In fact, resolution of Grama Sabha was filed vide USR No. 83549 of 2023. The said resolution contains name as well as signature of the petitioner.

21. Thus, petitioner approached this Court without disclosing the fact that Grama Sabha was conducted on 11.10.2021 and he was elected as president for renovation committee. Petitioner described himself as founder family member, even in the absence of any recognition by any authority. Person approaching the Court with unclean hands is not entitled to equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

22. Bank account bearing No. 91144332139 in Andhra Pragathi Bank was opened in the name of committee to keep the contributed funds of Villagers' of Gundemadakala Village. An amount of Rs. 15,18,624/-was received as donations. Villagers must deposit 25% of the contribution with the Trust, so that Trust will release Rs. 1 crore and the amount will be expended for reconstruction/renovation of the temple. It is not out of case to mention that the amount will be handed over to the committee and members of the committee will expand the amount without following the procedure.

23. In the affidavit, petitioner contended that the licensed structural engineer, Kavali Municipality, who inspected the structure of the subject temple, certified that the structure life is around 10 to 14 years. However, petitioner himself filed affidavit that the family of the petitioners will expand the amount of Rs. 1 crore and reconstruction of the temple will be commenced after Sankranthi Festival in the year 2024. This, itself make it clear that the temple requires reconstruction/renovation.

24. As seen from the resolution of Trust, while approving Rs. 100 lakhs, the trust has taken into consideration the certificate of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Nellore as well as the inspection report of the Deputy Executive Engineer and the estimated amount. Keeping in view the objections of the trust, Rs. 100 lakhs, 25% contribution from locals and 75% from Srivani Trust was accorded.

25. If petitioner intends to contribute substantial amount for reconstruction, since, the temple is published and is under the control of the Assistant Commissioner, he has to donate the amount. Petitioner's consent to reconstruct the temple is not necessary, since the petitioner is not recognised as founder family member. Indeed, the Endowments Department will monitor the construction activity. Thus, the petitioner cannot contend infringement of right.

26. Since, petitioner filed affidavit before the Court, that he will procure Rs. 1 crore and construct temple, if petitioner is really interested in the development of temple, be advised to deposit the amount with the Assistant Commissioner i.e. District Endowments Officer, so that the amount will be utilised for better administration of institution.

27. In view of the discussion made supra, in the considered opinion of this Court that petitioner failed to prove any infringement of his right under Articles 14, 21, 25 and 300A of the Constitution of India. In fact, Articles 14, 21, 25 and 300A of the Constitution will not apply to the facts of the case. This Court does not find any merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

28. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

29. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.