The Telugu Desam Party leaders are busy mudslinging YSRCP for one reason or the other while the AP government continues to do its bit for the welfare of the people in the state. Of late even TDP supreme Chandrababu Naidu has started behaving as the true saviour of Hindu dharma in Andhra Pradesh. He and his partymen have been taking a dig at every move made by the AP government and also needlessly holding them responsible for every little thing that has happened in the state.
Ironically, a CAG report points out that the TDP president had diverted gunds meant to be used for 'dharmic' purposes to other activities. The other includes fuel expenses of the then AP government officials and establishment of educational institutions. What is more shocking is that the temple funds were given as grant to a private hospital!
As per the details outlined in CAG's complaince audit on 'Functioning of Endowments department in managemenet of temple lands', Chandrababu Naidu diverted temple funds amounting to over 34 crores in violation of the provisions of the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 (APCHRIE Act). It is worth mentioning here that Section 72 of the APCHRIE Act mentions that any surplus temple funds can be used only on activities such as setting up of insitutions of learning (Vedas, sankrit) or for promotion of sanatana Dharma or grants to temples in need and the like.
However, Chandrababu's diversion of temple funds is in clear violation of the clauses mentioned in the act. Naidu government had given a lame response in response to the CAG enquiry stating that salaries for staffers working in educational institutions were paid from temple funds as they did not come under grants-in-aid programme. However, the CAG observed that such expenditure from temple funds was irregular as no such provision exists in the Act. The TDP government was also silent on the grant provided to a private hospital.
The CAG also found that the then AP govt had diverted Rs 12.41 crore from Common Good Fund (CGF) for constructing an office building for endowments commissioner, which too goes against provisions of the act.