Holding

The Court held that the appropriate remedy is to appoint an Advocate as Commissioner to peruse the accounts, determine the excess amounts, and enable the Additional District Judge to pass orders for refund or execution as a decree.

Summary

The Executive Officer of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) filed an application seeking recovery of excess payments made to archakas, gamekars, jeeyamgars and other mirasidars under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. The TTD alleged that payments totalling approximately Rs. 27.24 crore exceeded the amounts due and that the officers had failed to render accounts or provide adequate security as directed by earlier Supreme Court orders. The Court held that the matter could not be resolved without a detailed audit of the accounts and therefore directed the Additional District Judge, Tirupati, to appoint an Advocate as Commissioner to examine the records, assess liabilities and recommend refunds. The Commissioner is to give notice to all concerned parties, assess their entitlements, and submit a report to the Judge, who will then pass appropriate orders for recovery or refund, treating substantial amounts as a decree enforceable under Order XXI of the CPC. The application was disposed of with these procedural directions, and the parties were ordered to comply accordingly.

Issues considered

Whether the TTD can be directed to recover excess payments made to archakas, gamekars and other officers under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.
Whether the appointment of an Advocate‑Commissioner to audit accounts and determine liabilities is an appropriate remedy.
Whether the Court can treat the determined excess amount as a decree for execution under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Legislation cited

Subjects

refund of excess paymentsaccount auditadvocate-commissionerheritage rights abolitionAndhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Actexecution of decreeCivil Procedure

Judgment

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TTD, TIRUPATI A
v.
A.S. NARAYAN DEEKSHITULU AND ORS.

MAY 9, 1997

[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] B

Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and En-
dowments Act, 1987 :

Thirumala Tirnpati Devasthanams-Archakas and other of- C
ficers-Abolition of heredita1y right to appointment-Payments made to Ar-
chakas and other officers-Application by TTD for recovery of excess
payment-Direction by Supreme Court to Additional District Judge, Tirnpati
to appoint a Commissioner for perusal of accounts and detennination of
respective entitlements.
D
While upholding the constitutional validity of various provisions of
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endow-
ments Act, 1987 this Court held that abolition of hereditary rights of ar-
chakas and other office holders was not unconstitutional. * The Executive
Officer of the Thirumala Tirupati Devasthanams was also permitted to work
out the payments made to the archakas and other officers. The present ap· E
plication has been filed by him stating that they have received more than
what was due to them. Consequently he sought (i) directions for refund of
amount paid to archakas, gamekars, jeeyamgars and other mirasidars as
well as rendering of account of offerings received by them; (ii) directions to
Additional District Judge, Tirupati to credit the cash securities furnished by F
gamekars to TTD account and; (iii) orders directing archakas to refund
cash to TTD equal to the immovable property securities furnished by them.

Disposing the application, this Court

HELD : This matter cannot be dealt with adequately unless accounts G
are perused and respective entitlements are determined. Therefore the ap-
propriate course would be that the Additional District Judge, Tirupati
should appoint an Advocate as Commissioner. TTD shall place all the
records relating to the payments made to various persons before the Advo-
cate-Commissioner. The Commissioner shall give notice to all the
mirasidars and gamekars and assess their respective entitlements and the H
369
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A liabilities. The report shall be placed before the Additional District Judge
who before accepting the report of the Commissioner, would also give notice
to all the persons to appear before him and after hearing their objections, if
any, pass the order of r~fund, if any, to be made by the respective
mirasidars/gamekars. In case the amount to be refunded is substantial and
in case the mirasidars/gamekars are not seeking any appointment under the
B service of the petitioner, after realising the amounts from the security fur-
nished by them, the balance amount shall be recovered as if it is a decree
passed by this Court and the same may be realised in accordance with the
procedure prescribed for execution of the decrees in Order XXI, CPC. In
case the archakas/gamekars should seek appointment in the service of the
C petitioner and in case they do not possess any substantial immovable
property, the same may be recovered in easy instalments from part of the
emoluments payable to them. (373-A-G]

*A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State ofAndhra Pradesh & Ors., [1996] 9
sec 548, referred to.
D
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION :

I.A. No. 12

IN
E
Writ Petition (C) No. 638 of 1987

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

D.D. Thakur, P.P. Rao, Hardev Singh, Dr. Gauri Shankar, C.
p Mukund, T.V. Ratnam, B. Kanta Rao, K. Ram Kumar, C.
Balasubramaniam, Mrs. Asha Nair, V. Balaji, N. Ganpathy, A.T.M. Sam-
path, Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, S. Markandeya, Mrs. Chitra Markandeya,
Ms. Meenakshi Aggarwal, A. Subba Rao, A.D.N. Rao, V. Balachandran,
Jain Hansaria & Co., P.N. Ramalingam, 8. Parthasarthy, Y.P. Rao, Ms.
Sadhana Ramachandran, Ms. 8. Sunita Rao and Ms. H. Wahi, for the
G appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was deiivered by

K. RAMASWAMY, J. I.A. No. 12/97 in Writ Petition No. 638/87 has
been filed by the TTD Executive Officer, Tirupati for the following direc-
H tions:
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TID, TIRUPATI v, AS.N. DEEKSHITIJLU [K RAMASWAMY, J.] 371

"(a) To direct Archakas, Gamekars, Jeeyamgars and other A
Mirasidars to refund the amount paid to them besides rendering
account of the offerings both in cash and kind the value thereof
received by them as their remuneration, salary and perquisites, to
the Executive Officer, T.T.D. Devasthanams.

(b) To direct the Additional District Judge, Tirupati to credit the B
cash securities furnished by the Gamekars of Tirumala Temple to
the T.T. Devasthanams account in view of the fact that they are
paid heavy amounts subject to finalisation of payments of emolu-
ments paid to them from 22.6.1987 to 21.3.1996 on the result of
the judgment in W.P. No. 638 of 1987 etc. C
(c) To direct the Additional District Judge, Tirupati to pass orders
directing Archakas of Tirumala Temple, Tirumala to refund Cash
to the T.T. Devasthanams equal to the immovable property
securities furnished by them in view of the fact that they are paid
heavy amounts subject to finalisation of payments of emoluments D
paid to them from 22.6.1987 to 21.3.1996, on the result of the
Judgment in W.P. No. 638 of 1987 etc., and

(d) To pass such further or other order or orders as may be just
and necessary under the circumstances of the case." • E
In paragraph 136 of the judgment in A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v.
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., [1996) 9 SCC 548, this Court has reiterated
the interim directions passed by this Court from time to time. In paragraph
138, it is stated as under :
F
"In view of the fact that writ petitions and transfer cases are being
disposed of, it would be open to the Executive Officer of TTD etc.
to work out the payments made to the Archakas, mirasidars and
gamekars etc. and also the rights consistent with the law and would
take action accordingly."
G
The interim directions were extracted in paragraph 136. It is not
necessary to reiterate the same. In the application, it is stated in paragraph
7 that emoluments paid in cash and kind are worth about Rs. 23 crores by
the TTD to the Archakas and gamekars of the TTD from June 1987 to
January 1996. However, the Archakas and gamekars failed to give proper H
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A and full security by way of bank guarantee to the Additional District Judge.
The Bank guarantee given between 1989 to 1992 was not renewed. Thereby,
they have disobeyed the orders of this Court. The Archakas had furnished
only immovable properties security for an amount of Rs. 20 lacs to the
Additional District Judge as per the order dated August 25, 1987; but they
have not complied with the directions dated November 7, 1989. Now, they
B
have furnished bank guaranteed only for Rs. 5 lacs. The total amount paid
to the various persons is as under :

"Archakas Rs.10,29,51,634.23

Gamekars Rs. 12,49,55,058.36
c
Pedda Jeeyangar Rs. 2,07,11,919.57

Chinna Jeeyangar Rs. 2,05,90,609.16

Purohitham Vedyar Rs. 23,20,179.34
D
Thallapakam Rs. 8,58,959.00

Total Rs. 27,23,88,359.66

Similar shares were also paid to the Archakas of Shri Padmavathi
E Aqimavaru Temple, Tiruchanoor which are also substantial."

The amount, thus, paid is Rs. 27,23,88,359.66. It is stated that similar
shares were also paid to the Archakas of Shri Padmavathi Ammavaru
Temple. In spite of the directions given by this Court, they have not
rendered any account for the emoluments received by them since they have
F received more than what was due for them. In spite of the notice given to
them to render account of the emoluments received by .them they have
been avoiding to render account in terms of the directions of this Court.
In spite of the notice given for joining, many of them have not responded.
It is stated as under :
G "The Mirasidars knew pretty well that the emoluments received by
them towards remuneration and perquisites for the services
rendered by them are heavy amounts when compared with the
worth of services rendered by them. They are liable to repay, the
excess amount which they have drawn, to the Institution with effect
H from 22.6.1987."
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ITO, TIRUPATI v. A.S.N. DEEKSHITULU IK RAMASWAMY, J.] 373

Accordingly, they sought directions for repayment in terms of the A
interim directions. The Mirasidars have not filed any counter to this
application, though it was filed on February 11, 1987. We think that we
cannot adequately deal with this matter unless accounts are perused and
respective entitlements are determined. We think that the appropriate
course would be that the Additional District Judge, Tirupati should ap- B
point an Advocate as Commissioner. The petitioner shall bear the fees of
the Advocate-Commissioner. TTD shall place all the record relating to the
payments made to all the mirasidars and gamekars etc. from time to time
after the date of the interim direction dated June 27, J.987 till the date of
the judgment. TTD also shall give particulars of the payments made to
various persons to the Advocate-Commissioner. The Commissioner shall C
give notice to all the mirasidars and gamekars or whose names are fur-
- nished by the petitioner. They shall appear on a date fixed by the Commis-
sioner. In case they do not appear either in person or through counsel, the
Advocate-Commissioner would be at liberty to assess the respective entit-
lements and the liabilities. In case the amount paid by the TTD as per the D
interim directions is in excess· of the amount, the same shall be determined.
The Commissioner shall place the report before the Additional District
Judge. The Additional District Judge, before accepting the report of the
Commissioner, would also give notice to all the persons to appear before
him and after hearing their objections, if any, pass the order of refund, if
any, to be made by the respective mirasidars/gamekars. In case the amount E
to be refunded is substantial and in case the mirasidars/gamekars are not
seeking any appointment under the servicL of the petitioner, after realising
the amounts from the security furnished by them, the balance amount shall
be recovered as if it is a decree passed by this Court and the same may be
realised in accordance with the procedure prescribed for execution of the F
decrees in Order XXI, CPC.

In case the archakas/gamekars should seek appointment in the ser-
vice of the petitioner and in case they do not possess any substantial
immovable property, the same may be recovered in easy instalments from
part of the emoluments payable to the archakas/gamekars appointed in G
accordance with their designation approved in the companion order.

The application is accordingly disposed of.

T.N.A. Petition disposed of.

-'.;