Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 — S. 2(18)(b) — “Person having interest” — Locus standi to maintain writ petition — Scope of definition — Failure by learned Single Judge to consider statutory definition — Matter remanded. Where a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the petitioner had no locus standi, the Division Bench held that the Single Judge had failed to notice the statutory definition of “person having interest” under Section 2(18)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, which expressly includes a person entitled to attend or in the habit of attending the performance of service, charity or worship connected with the institution, or partaking in the benefit of such charity or distribution of gifts. Held, that the said statutory provision was material to determining locus, and the learned Single Judge’s omission to consider it rendered the impugned judgment unsustainable. The writ petition therefore required reconsideration on merits in light of Section 2(18)(b).

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Before: The Hon’ble the Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur
       and
       The Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao
Date: 6th November, 2025
Writ Appeal No. 1138 of 2025
[2025:APHC:47095]

CASE TITLE

Bhumireddy Subbarayudu … Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others … Respondents

HEADNOTES

Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 — S. 2(18)(b) — “Person having interest” — Locus standi to maintain writ petition — Scope of definition — Failure by learned Single Judge to consider statutory definition — Matter remanded.

Where a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the petitioner had no locus standi, the Division Bench held that the Single Judge had failed to notice the statutory definition of “person having interest” under Section 2(18)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, which expressly includes a person entitled to attend or in the habit of attending the performance of service, charity or worship connected with the institution, or partaking in the benefit of such charity or distribution of gifts.

Held, that the said statutory provision was material to determining locus, and the learned Single Judge’s omission to consider it rendered the impugned judgment unsustainable. The writ petition therefore required reconsideration on merits in light of Section 2(18)(b).

CASE FACTS

The appellant had filed Writ Petition No. 6532 of 2022 before the High Court questioning certain actions of the Endowments Department concerning a charitable/religious institution. The writ petition was dismissed on 29-11-2024 by the learned Single Judge solely on the ground that the petitioner had no locus standi to maintain it.

In appeal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr. V. Venugopal Rao, contended that the learned Single Judge overlooked Section 2(18)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, which defines who is a “person having interest” in relation to a charitable or religious institution and thus entitled to maintain proceedings.

The State and departmental respondents were represented by Mr. T. Venu Gopal, Standing Counsel for Endowments (Rayalaseema Region), and Ms. Sodum Anvesha, Government Pleader for Endowments.

HELD BY

Per Dhiraj Singh Thakur, C.J. and R. Raghunandan Rao, J. —
Accepting the appellant’s contention, the Division Bench held that the matter required fresh consideration in view of the specific wording of Section 2(18)(b). Since the definition directly relates to the right of a person to approach the Court regarding matters of a charitable or religious endowment, the learned Single Judge ought to have examined the question of locus in that light.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal was allowed. The judgment and order dated 29-11-2024 in W.P. No. 6532 of 2022 were set aside, and the writ petition directed to be heard afresh by the learned Single Judge having roster.

Result: Writ Appeal allowed; matter remanded for fresh hearing; no order as to costs.

Counsel:
For Appellant — Mr. V. Venugopal Rao, Sr. Counsel appearing for Mr. V. Venkatasubbaiah.
For Respondents — Mr. T. Venu Gopal (Standing Counsel for Endowments, Rayalaseema Region); GP for Endowments; Ms. Sodum Anvesha.

Citation: 2025 AP High Court 4710 (Unreported) = 2025:APHC:47095