IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5697 of 2003 Between: A. Vnkata Rama Gurunadham … Petitioner And The Commissioner of Endowments, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Ms. Ch. Kanaka Durga Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Endowments Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri B. Kesava Rao for Sri V.T.M. Prasad This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5697 of 2003 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 20.01.2003 of respondent No.1, whereby he appointed respondent No.2 as Person-in-Management to manage the affairs of Sri Vigneswara Swamy and Sri Vinayaka Swamy Temples, Vallabhapuram, Kollipara Mandal, Guntur District. The petitioner claims to be the founder trustee of the abovementioned temples, hereinafter referred to as ‘temples’. According to the petitioner, his great grandfather Sri A. Sri Ramulu constructed Sri Vinayaka Swamy Temple in the year 1912 and donated an extent of Ac.7.38 cents of land to the said temple. He further claimed that after the death of his grandfather, his father managed the temple and after the lifetime of his father, he acted as the trustee of the temple from the year 1953 and that in the year 1957, he got the temple registered under the provisions of the Madras Endowments Act. The petitioner averred that though the temple was registered under the Endowments Act, no Executive Officer was appointed to the said temple prior to 1971 and that in the same year, on his request, an Executive Officer was appointed to the temple in view of the pendency of the tenancy cases. The petitioner claimed that he was functioning as founder trustee along with the Executive Officer and that the temple paid Rs.662-25 ps in the year 1996 and Rs.5,254/- for the year 2001-02 towards contribution and that as an Executive Officer was working, he was drawing his salary from the Government exchequer. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the appointment of a Person-in- Management under the impugned order. He averred that as the Rajagopuram of the temple is in a dilapidated condition, it requires repairs and that Dwajastambam, which has fallen, is also required to be erected according to the Agama Sastras. The petitioner made an application to respondent No.1 to sanction the said works and that respondent No.1 sanctioned the estimates vide his proceedings dated 21.05.2001 and a request for sanctioning further funds from the Common Good Fund is under consideration. The petitioner averred that the assessable income of the temple varied between Rs.27,900/- and Rs.44,680/- between 1996-97 and 2001-02 and he lamented that on account of appointment of Person-in-Management, the entire income of the temple will be appropriated towards his salary. In short, the plea of the petitioner is that either an Executive Officer be appointed under Section 29(3)(d) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”) or he may be permitted to act as the founder trustee. No counter affidavits have been filed by any of the respondents. The averments contained in the affidavit relating to the income of the temple in question are not controverted. The further averments that the renovation works for Rajagopuram and erection of Dwajastambam requiring huge funds are also not denied. Neither in the impugned order the circumstances leading to the appointment of a Person-in-Management have been explained nor have the respondents chosen to file a counter affidavit explaining the reasons there for. Under Section 29(3)(d) of the Act, if an Executive Officer is appointed, his salary, allowances, pension and other remuneration will be paid out of the consolidated fund of the State, which will later be recovered from the Endowment Administrative Fund. If the respondents felt the necessity of getting the petitioner’s temples managed by an officer of the Endowments Department, it would have been open to them to appoint an Executive Officer, which would not have cast any burden on the petitioner’s temples. Appointment of a Person-in-Management would undoubtedly impose a heavy financial burden on the institution, as the benefit of the provisions of Section 29(3)(d) would not be available to the institution. In the absence of any denial by the respondents of the stand of the petitioner, I find the petitioner’s grievance justifiable. While the power of the Endowments Department to manage the religious and charitable institutions in the manner as it deems fit in accordance with the provisions of the Act cannot be curtailed, at the same time, its actions should be fair, reasonable and rational. Obviously, realizing the financial burden the appointments of Executive Officer may impose on the exchequer, the Legislature amended Section 15 of the Act by Act No.33 of 2007. By this amendment, while making appointment of the Executive Officers, obligatory in case of temples, whose annual income is above two lakhs, it is made discretionary in respect of temples whose income is less than Rs.2 lakhs per annum. It is not in dispute that the income of the temples in question does not exceed Rs.2 lakhs and therefore appointment of an Executive Officer is not compulsory. Even if the respondents found appointment of a departmental officer necessary for managing the temples in question, they should have kept one of the Executive Officers of the nearby temple as in-charge of the temples in question. This would have saved the expenditure of public exchequer and avoid undue burden on the petitioner’s institution. By imposing a Person-in- Management on a small institution such as the petitioner, the further development and progress of the institution will be severely retarded and its interests jeopardized. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Liberty is, however, given to respondent No.1 to keep Executive Officer of the nearby temple in-charge of the two temples in question in place of Person-in-Management. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.7485 of 2003 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 10.02.2010 ES