Temple reconsecration (Punah-pratishta) — Repetition without basis — Impermissibility (Paras 2–5, 8) Issue: Whether fresh reconsecration (Punah-pratishta) of idols in temple can be undertaken after reconsecration was already completed in 2024. Facts: Villagers and devotees of Sri Someshwara Swamy Sri Seetharamalayamu Temple alleged that unofficial respondents were attempting to replace Shiva Lingam and idols of Sri Ramulavaru, Sri Seethamma Thalli, Lakshmana and Anjaneya Swamy for conducting another Punah-pratishta, though reconsecration ceremonies had already been completed on 19.03.2024 and regular worship was continuing thereafter. Held: Since reconsecration had already been completed in 2024 and no valid basis for conducting another Punah-pratishta was shown, respondents were directed not to permit any fresh reconsecration in the temple. (Paras 2–5, 8)

advocatemmmohan

AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

Temple reconsecration (Punah-pratishta) — Repetition without basis — Impermissibility (Paras 2–5, 8)

Issue: Whether fresh reconsecration (Punah-pratishta) of idols in temple can be undertaken after reconsecration was already completed in 2024.
Facts: Villagers and devotees of Sri Someshwara Swamy Sri Seetharamalayamu Temple alleged that unofficial respondents were attempting to replace Shiva Lingam and idols of Sri Ramulavaru, Sri Seethamma Thalli, Lakshmana and Anjaneya Swamy for conducting another Punah-pratishta, though reconsecration ceremonies had already been completed on 19.03.2024 and regular worship was continuing thereafter.
Held: Since reconsecration had already been completed in 2024 and no valid basis for conducting another Punah-pratishta was shown, respondents were directed not to permit any fresh reconsecration in the temple. (Paras 2–5, 8)

---

Endowments — Apprehension unsupported by record — Writ disposed based on official instructions (Paras 4–5, 7)

Issue: Whether there existed any actual proposal by Endowments Department for fresh reconsecration.
Facts: District Endowments Officer informed Court through written instructions that reconsecration had already been completed two years earlier, regular poojas and festivals were being conducted peacefully by villagers, and no proposal existed for fresh Punah-pratishta.
Held: In absence of any substantiated proposal for reconsecration and in light of official instructions denying such activity, Court found apprehension of petitioners unsupported by record. (Paras 4–5, 7)

---

Endowments Act — Local management of notified temple — Limited departmental control (Para 6)

Issue: Whether temple was under direct administrative control of Endowments Department.
Facts: Though temple was a notified institution, its affairs including poojas and administration were being managed by village elders and devotees, and temple income was stated to be below ₹5,00,000/-.
Held: Court observed that temple did not appear to be under direct control of Endowments Department, possibly due to applicability of Sections 15 to 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 relating to institutions with lesser income. (Para 6)