Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition by Shri Udasin Mutt, represented by its mahanth Arun Das Udasin, challenging the Endowments Commissioner’s order appointing the executive officer of Sri Venkateswara Perumal temple, Secunderabad, to take charge of the Mutt.
The Mutt owns over 540 acres of land in Kukatpally, leased decades ago to Indian Detonators Ltd and IDL Chemicals Ltd for 99 years. The petitioner argued that under the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, the commissioner had no authority to appoint an EO to a Mutt, claiming such power lay with the Dharmika Parishad under Section 152. It was also argued that the order violated Article 26 of the Constitution.
The Endowments department countered that the order was issued following a 2009 Lokayukta report on encroachments of endowed lands. Justice Bheemapaka held that once an institution comes under the purview of the Act, appointment of a “fit person” or EO under Section 29 cannot be questioned. The court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the Ahobilam Mutt case, noting factual differences, including government recognition of Arun Das Udasin as Mahanth in 2006.
Court rejects appeal on UAPA sanction validity
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a criminal appeal filed by one Abdul Khadar and two others challenging the validity of a prosecution sanction order under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The appellants, in NIA’s Special Case No.1 of 2023 against the Popular Front of India, questioned the trial court’s June 18, 2025 order rejecting their plea to summon records relating to the sanction granted on December 28, 2022. They argued that the sanction was “mechanical” and in violation of statutory provisions.
The NIA argued that sanction validity could be tested only during trial, not at the pre-trial stage. It said the order followed an independent review by a statutory authority comprising a retired judge and a former law secretary, with all relevant documents placed before them. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Fuleshwar Gope v. Union of India, a division bench of Justice K Lakshman and Justice BR Madhusudhan Rao held that UAPA sanction orders need not contain detailed reasons and that their validity must be tested during trial. The bench also rejected the appellants’ claim of inconsistencies between the 2022 and 2025 sanction orders, observing that both referred to relevant documents.