The Telangana High Court’s intervention in the delayed approval of the Sammakka-Saralamma Jathara underscores a critical principle: administrative silence in matters of cultural and religious significance, when coupled with established practice and public interest, constitutes arbitrariness under Article 14. This judgment reinforces the duty of state authorities to act with reasonable promptness and transparency.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sammakka-Saralamma Temple Seva Samiti, is a registered society (Reg. No. 512/2010) that has managed the annual Sammakka-Saralamma Jathara for the past 14 years in Bommakal Village, Karimnagar District. The festival, deeply rooted in local tradition and attracting lakhs of devotees, was historically conducted under the society’s management. However, following allegations of financial misconduct by the former General Secretary, Thota Mohan, including misappropriation of hundi funds and illegal electricity use leading to meter disconnection, the society sought to merge the temple with the Endowments Department in December 2020. The temple was formally registered under Section 43 of the Endowments Act on 27.07.2025.
Procedural History
- 2024: The Jathara was conducted under Gram Panchayat and Revenue Department supervision, following an NOC dated 29.01.2024.
- 2025: Thota Mohan and his wife obtained a court order in W.P. No. 40783 of 2025, allegedly by suppressing facts, to claim control over the festival through a purportedly bogus association.
- 19.01.2026: The petitioner submitted a formal representation to the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Karimnagar, requesting permission to conduct the 2026 Jathara from 28.01.2026 to 31.01.2026 and to manage its affairs.
- 28.01.2026: No response was received from the third respondent despite the imminent date of the festival.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Assistant Commissioner to consider its representation and permit the Jathara to proceed under its management, arguing that the inaction violated Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether administrative inaction in failing to respond to a timely representation regarding the conduct of a long-standing religious festival, with no stated reason or procedural basis, amounts to arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on State of U.P. v. Krishna Kumar and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to argue that procedural fairness and reasonable time are inherent in Article 14. It emphasized its 14-year track record of lawful management, the public nature of the event, and the absence of any legal bar to its continued role. The delay, it contended, was not merely procedural but prejudicial, threatening the cultural and religious rights of devotees under Article 21.
For the Respondent
The Government Pleader submitted that the Endowments Department had issued oral instructions to conduct the Jathara at an alternate location under its direct supervision, implying that the petitioner’s representation was rendered redundant. However, no written order or formal communication was produced until the day of hearing, and no explanation was offered for the failure to respond to the representation within a reasonable time.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the principle that administrative silence in the face of a legitimate request, particularly when public interest and established practice are involved, cannot be equated with implied consent or non-action. The Court noted that the petitioner had acted in good faith, complied with all formalities, and had no alternative but to approach the Court due to the imminent date of the festival.
"The State cannot remain mute when a longstanding religious practice is at stake, especially when the petitioner has demonstrated continuity, legitimacy and public service. Silence in such circumstances is not neutrality - it is arbitrariness."
The Court rejected the notion that oral instructions could substitute for formal administrative response. It held that Article 14 demands not just non-discrimination but also reasoned decision-making and timely responsiveness. The failure to consider the representation, without any justification, amounted to a violation of the petitioner’s right to equal protection of law. The Court further observed that the State’s subsequent production of written instructions - only after the petition was filed - was an attempt to regularize an otherwise unlawful delay.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that administrative inaction without reason violates Article 14 and directed that the 2026 Sammakka-Saralamma Jathara be conducted under the management of the petitioner society, as requested in its representation. The Court brought the Assistant Commissioner’s written instructions on record and closed all pending applications, with no costs awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Administrative Silence Is Not Lawful
- Practitioners must now treat unexplained delays in responding to representations concerning religious, cultural, or public events as prima facie violations of Article 14.
- A petition under Article 226 is maintainable even if the final decision is pending, provided the delay is unreasonable and prejudicial.
Written Communication Is Mandatory
- Oral directives from officials, even if recorded later, cannot substitute for formal written responses to representations.
- All state departments must maintain a log of representations and issue time-bound replies, failing which courts may infer arbitrariness.
Religious Practices Are Protected Under Article 21
- Long-standing religious festivals, even if not formally institutionalized, attract protection under Article 21 as part of cultural identity and community life.
- Courts will intervene where state inaction threatens the continuity of such practices, especially when a legitimate managing body exists.
