IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 15040 of 2002 Between: K. Satyanarayana, S/o. Late K. Laxmaiah, R/o. 4-89, Marutinagar, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District-500 047. ..... PETITIONER AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Endowments), Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.BHANU PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 15040 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare the order in R.C.No.G3/33496/2002 dated 29-07- 2002 of respondent No.2 in appointing respondent No.3 as Executive Oﬃcer, without registering the temple under Section 6 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’), as illegal and arbitrary. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, the petitioner averred that he is the Secretary of Sri Hanuman Temple Committee, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, that the residents of Marutinagar and surrounding areas use to worship a small idol of Sri Hanuman and thereafter, all of them, through their personal contributions constructed the Hanuman Temple and have been managing the temple by constituting the above mentioned committee. The main ground on which the petitioner assailed the impugned order is that the temple has not been registered under Section 6 of the Act and that without registration, respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to appoint respondent No.3 as Executive Officer. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.2, it i s , inter alia, stated that the temple in question was registered under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act and the same was notiﬁed in the gazette vide Sl.No.639 dated 26-07- 2002. It is further averred that in pursuance of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Endowments Department, appointing respondent No.3 as Executive Oﬃcer, the petitioner, vide his letter dated 03- 08-2002, gave consent to handover charge of the temple after 15 days. The very premise on which the writ petition is ﬁled, namely, that appointment of Executive Oﬃcer without registration of the temple is illegal does not survive in view of the fact that before respondent No.3 was appointed, the temple was registered. Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that before registering the temple, it is incumbent upon the respondents to give notice to the persons in the management as held by this Court in Rajah of Venkatagiri v. State of A.P.[1]. The issue relating to validity of registration is not involved in this writ petition because, as noted above, the very contention of the petitioner is that the temple has not been registered and that appointment of Executive Officer without registration is illegal. Therefore, in this writ petition, as it is conceived, it is not proper to go into the question regarding the validity or otherwise of the registration. If the petitioner is so advised, he is given liberty to avail his remedy available in law to question registration. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.18820 of 2002 and WVMP.Nos.533 and 862 of 2002 are dismissed as infructuous. _________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dt:16.10.2008 Usd [1] 1987 (1) ALT 256