IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9721 of 1999 Between: S. Narasimha Rao S/O Late S. Ramalinga Swamy R/o. Santhanuthalapadu, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Registrar of Lokayukta, A.P. Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Officer, Tripuranthakeswara Swamy Temple, Santhanuthalapadu Village, Prakasam District. 3 The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Ongole. 4 Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur. 5 Commissioner of Endowments, A.P., Hyderabad. 6 Somarajupillai Buchibabu Sarma S/o. Annaiah Tripuranthakeswara Swamy Temple, Santhanuthalapadu Village, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or directions, declaring that the order passed by the Hon'ble LOKAYUKTA of Andhra Pradesh in Complaint No. 1553/96/B1 dated 12.10.1998, as illegal and opposed to the principles of natural justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.N.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: (SC AP LOKAYUKTA & UPALOKAYUKTA) The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri P.Swaroop Reddy, J.) This writ petition is filed by the member of founder’s family of Sri Thripuranthaka Swamy Vari Temple, Santhanuthalapadu, Prakasam District, who is the executive authority of the said temple, entitled to manage the temple and temple properties, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Lokayukta in complaint No.1553/96/B1, dated 12.10.1998. The 5th respondent, archaka of the said temple filed a complaint before the Lokayukta alleging that the petitioner has misappropriated the temple funds and he has not paid salary from 1.1.1994 at the rate of Rs.600/- per month. He made several representations to the endowments authorities and also to the Minister for Endowments, but no action has been taken on those representations. It is further alleged that the petitioner has not taken any interest from 1.1.1994 for improvement of the temple and he did not pay the current charges and provide for Deepa-aradana. It is further alleged that the temple had got 125 acres of lands and getting annual income of Rs.40,000/- and that the petitioner trustee is not spending even a pie on the temple and he had also created false vouchers and got approved by paying illegal gratification to the department officers. Basing on the said complaint, the Lokayukta got the matters investigated and observed that it is the bounden duty of the Endowments authorities to constitute a non- hereditary Trust Board in accordance with the provisions of Act 30 of 1987 and directed public servants, respondents 2 to 4 to take action under the amended Endowments Act and constitute a Non-hereditary Trust Board and they should remove the (PS-5) petitioner herein from the so-called hereditary Managing Trusteeship and take charge of all the temple properties, make the petitioner account for all the properties of the temple and the income from the temple properties and he should also be made responsible for rendering account for the gold and jewellary of the deity and the silverware of the temple and should take possession of the properties of the temple and the temple management. Under no circumstances, PS-5, who has been guilty of mismanagement continuously, should be allowed to continue in possession of the properties, income and administration of the temple. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the hereditary trustee and in that capacity he is managing the temple. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner stated that he is the member of founder’s family and he is the executive authority of the said temple and entitled to manage the temple and temple properties. The contention of the petitioner is that the alleged enquiry said to have been conducted by the officer of Lokayukta is behind the back of the petitioner and he is not a party to the same. He has not at all stated that he is the hereditary trustee of the temple. It is not stated on what basis he has become the executive authority of the said temple and he is entitled to manage the temple and temple properties. There is absolutely no material to show that the petitioner is the hereditary trustee of the said temple and he is entitled to manage the temple and temple properties. In the circumstances, we do not see anything wrong in the orders passed by the learned Lokayukta in the said complaint No.1553/96/B1, dated 12.10.1998. As the complaint of the petitioner is that the enquiry was conducted in his absence, he shall not be liable for any criminal or civil action straight away on the basis of the impugned order, without any further enquiry with the participation of the petitioner. The order with regard to the direction given to the official respondents for taking over all the movable and immovable properties of the temple shall stand. The official respondents shall take all steps in accordance with the existing Endowments Act. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. __________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 26.6.2009 kpr