Ch. Ramesh vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Ch. Ramesh, a devotee and donor, sought a writ of mandamus from the Telangana High Court. He had obtained a sanction order (Rc.No.H4/05709/2024 dated 25.07.2024) from the Commissioner, Endowments Department, for the construction of a temple under a donor scheme. However, the respondents allegedly refused to permit construction and failed to issue a certified copy of the sanction order. The petitioner sought a declaration that the inaction was illegal and arbitrary, and requested the re-issuance of the sanction order, an extension of the construction period, and a directive against any obstruction. The respondents, through the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, submitted that the Executive Officer reported insufficient space for the proposed temple and recommended reviewing the permission. A renovation committee also recommended rejecting the permission. The original sanction order stipulated a 9-month completion period.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner failed to proceed with the construction within the stipulated period of 9 months as per the sanction order dated 25.07.2024. Furthermore, subsequent developments, including the Executive Officer's report highlighting insufficient space and the renovation committee's resolution recommending rejection of permission, indicated a need for reconsideration. The Court opined that the Commissioner, Endowments Department (the 2nd respondent), alone had to reconsider the petitioner's request in accordance with the law. This reconsideration must be done after providing an opportunity to all concerned parties, taking into account the report dated 23.09.2024, the resolution dated 18.08.2025, and the original sanction order. The Court directed the 2nd respondent to make a decision on the report within four weeks from the date of the order, in conformity with the principles of natural justice and in accordance with law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inaction of the respondents in not issuing/re-issuing the Sanction Order Rc.No.H4/05709/2024 dated 25.07.2024, granted under the Donor Scheme, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 21, and 25 of the Constitution of India? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and administrative law). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents' failure to issue/re-issue the sanction order was illegal and arbitrary, violating constitutional rights. They sought a direction for the re-issuance of the order and permission to proceed with construction. Respondents' contention: The respondents argued that the Executive Officer's report indicated insufficient space for the temple, and a renovation committee recommended rejecting the permission. They also highlighted that the petitioner failed to commence construction within the stipulated 9-month period mentioned in the original sanction order, thus disentitling them to any equities.