THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2142 of 2011 Dated 04th February, 2011 Between: Bollavaram Galaiah …Petitioner And The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V.V.N.Narasimham Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Endowments Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sri V.T.M.Prasad The Court made the following: ORDER: This is a vexatious writ petition filed by an Ex-Sarpanch of Jellivaripullalacheruvu Village, Racharla Mandal, Prakasam District, whereby he has called in question proceedings, dated 30.12.2010, of respondent No.1, whereby he has fixed fees for various sevas that are being performed in Sri Nemaligundla Ranganayaka Swamyvari temple, Jellivaripullalacheruvu Village, Racharla Mandal, Prakasam District. According to the petitioner, he was the Sarpanch of the above- noted Village and a member of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency, that he was instrumental in laying a road to the temple, which is situated in Nallamala Forest and that the devotees, who visit the temple, are allowed to perform poojas without collecting money from them. The grievance of the petitioner is that by the impugned proceedings, respondent No.1 has permitted several sevas performed in the temple by fixing prices therefor. I have heard Sri V.V.N.Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments, representing respondent No.3, and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that while respondent No.2 is concerned with the administration of respondent No.3-temple, which is listed under Section 6-b of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’), respondent No.1 passed the impugned order and that therefore, he has no jurisdiction. The learned counsel further stated that since the administration of temple is vested in the Trust Board, without there being any resolution passed by it, respondent No.1 ought not to have issued the impugned proceedings. I do not find any merit in either of these two submissions of the learned counsel. Section 8 of the Act envisages that subject to the other provisions of the Act, the administration of all Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and endowments shall be under the general superintendence and control of the Commissioner and such superintendence and control shall include the power to pass any order which may be deemed necessary to ensure that such institutions and endowments are properly administered and their income is duly appropriated for the purpose for which they were found or exist. Section 10 of the Act prescribes that every Deputy Commissioner shall, within the division in his charge exercise the powers conferred on and perform the functions entrusted to him by or under the Act, in respect of such institutions or endowments as are included in the list published under clause (b) of Section 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any provision, which empowers the Deputy Commissioner to take a decision on collection of fees from sevas. On the contrary, the power conferred on respondent No.1 under Section 8 of the Act is of very wide amplitude, to which, the impugned order can be traced as it pertains to administration of the temple. The learned counsel is also unable to refer to any provision, which prohibits charge of fees on sevas. As regards the submission of the learned counsel that the decision is not supported by the resolution of the Trust Board of respondent No.3-temple, this submission overlooks the observation of respondent No.1 made in the impugned order that one of the reasons for making the said order is the request made vide letter, dated 15.12.2010 of the Chairman and four other members of the Trust Board. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.2658 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 04th February, 2011 VGB