THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.21955 of 2001 DATED: 19.08.2010 Between: Kalyana Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Palamaneru, Rep. by its Founder Trustee and Chairman Sri Kanduru Pandurangaiah Chetty .. Petitioner And The Commissioner of Endowments, A.P., Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents ORDER: Questioning the proceedings dated 31.08.2001 issued by the 1st respondent- Commissioner, Endowments, A.P., Hyderabad, whereby the 4th respondent was authorized to exercise the powers, perform the functions and discharge the duties of the Executive Officer of Sri Kalayana Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Palamaneru, and was designated as ‘Person-in-Management’ of the said temple, one Sri Kandur Sree Ramulu Chetty, who claims to be the founder trustee of the temple, filed the present writ petition, contending that when he is managing the affairs of the temple in the capacity of Hereditary Trustee, authorizing the 4th respondent, who has been working as a Junior Assistant, to act as Executive Officer, to manage the affairs of the temple, is arbitrary and illegal. During the pendency of the writ petition, since the said Sree Ramulu Chetty died, his younger brother namely Sri K. Pandurangaiah Chetty came on record in his place, contending that the said Sree Ramulu Chetty declared him as the founder trustee of the temple, during his lifetime, and executed a document to that effect on 13.07.2002. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the official respondents, denying the petitioner’s claim that he is the Hereditary Trustee of the subject temple. It is stated that the petitioner and six others were appointed as Non-Hereditary Trustees, by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Chittoor, vide proceedings in R.C.No.B2/6379/74 dated 30.12.74, for a period of three years, which was extended twice by two years on each occasion, and the petitioner was elected as Chairman of the Trust Board on three occasions. It is further stated that the petitioner did not file any application before the competent authority for his declaration as Founder Trustee and no such orders were passed by the competent authority under the provisions of Section 17 of the Endowments Act, recognizing him as Founder Trustee of the temple. The property which was endowed to the subject temple was gifted by others, but not by the ancestors of the petitioner, as alleged by him. As the subject institution possesses a land of Ac.1.07 cents and ten buildings, there is every necessity to appoint an Executive Officer or Person-in-Management to manage the institution on sound lines and to improve it both physically and financially and, therefore, the 1st respondent, exercising the statutory powers vested in him, issued the impugned proceedings, in accordance with the provisions of the Endowments Act. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the official respondents. Though the petitioner claims to be the Hereditary Trustee of the subject temple, the same is categorically denied by the respondent authorities and it is their stand that the petitioner was appointed only as a Non-Hereditary Trustee and Chairman of the Trust Board, for three terms and that he has not filed any application before the competent authority, seeking to declare him as Hereditary Trustee, and no such orders are ever issued in his favour. In view of this stand taken by the respondents, this Court cannot interfere with the impugned proceedings and grant any relief to the petitioner. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the competent authority, seeking to declare him as family member of the founder of the temple and regularize him as Hereditary Trustee of the temple. If the law so permits, the petitioner is at liberty to do so. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J Date: 19.08.2010 IBL