Latest news with #TelanganaEndowmentsAct

Time of India

HC nixes endowments' notice to bring Sanjay's temple under its control

Hyderabad: In a relief to Union minister of state for home Bandi Sanjay Kumar , the Telangana high court has set aside the notice seeking to bring under the purview of the endowments department the Maha Shakti temple in Chaitanyapuri in Karimnagar, which is built and administered by the minister's family. Justice EV Venugopal gave three months to authorities to consider the representation of the Union minister seeking exemption from the law mandating registration of temples under the Endowments Act. However, while deeming the notice premature, the court clarified that petitioner's (Sanjay) claim of the temple being a private institution was not substantiated solely by the absence of hundis or fees. The notice was issued by the assistant commissioner of endowments department in July 2016, asking Sanjay to apply for registration of the temple with the department under sub-section (1) of section 43 of the Telangana Endowments Act. Once such an application is made, the temple would come under the regulatory control of the endowments department. This was resisted by Sanjay who argued that the temple was constructed in 2010 with his own money (Rs 2 crore) and managed under the spiritual guidance of Sri Hampi Virupaksha Vidyaranya Bharathi Swamiji of Karnataka. The petitioner (Sanjay) was appointed as the Swamiji's agent and 'Dharmakartha' to oversee the temple's activities. The Act allows exemption to temples run by Mutts. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Investigadora argentina revela hallazgos sobre el magnesio Salud Esencial Leer más Undo Sanjay also contended that it was a private temple which has no income, no donation boxes (hundis), did not collect fees for religious services and all maintenance/festival expenses are borne by his family. He argued that such a setup did not warrant registration under the Endowments Act, especially when an application seeking exemption under Section 154 of the Act was already pending. Sanjay also pointed out the department's earlier exemptions to several temples such as Sri Balaji Temple, Chilkur village; Sri Subramanya Swamy Temple at Skandagiri, Secunderabad; Sri Jagdeesh Mandir, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad; and Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Tadbund etc. The endowments department, in its counter-affidavit, argued that Sanjay's temple was a public religious institution open to all devotees and therefore fell under the scope of the Act. They rejected the temple's private status and said mere absence of hundis or fees did not exempt it from registration. The officials pointed out that the temple's adoption by the Hampi Mutt was never ratified by the endowments department. They also said that beyond the initial notices no steps were taken by the department. Justice Venugopal noted that both parties had admitted to the existence of a pending exemption application. While observing that the department failed to assess the temple's income or initiate steps under Section 6 to determine eligibility for inclusion in the official list of charitable and religious institutions, it gave officials three months to consider the plea for exemption.