THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.644 of 2005 Between: U. Ganga Raju .... PETITIONER(S) AND Mananger, Sri Gubbalamma ammavari temple and others .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.644 2005 ORDER: (per HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED) The issue that falls for consideration in the present appeal is whether the authority who issued the show cause has necessary jurisdiction to issue the same. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein filed Writ Petition challenging the action of the 1st respondent-Manager of the temple in issuing the show cause notice memo No.53 of 2003 dated 31-12-2004. The main contention that was argued before the learned single Judge was that as per Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitablea nd Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, the Manager of Sri Gubbalamma Ammavari Temple, the first respondent herein, is not competent or empowered to suspend an employee or to take any disciplinary action. The learned single Judge opined that in the absence of any person to act on behalf of the trustee, the person who is entrusted with the management and administration of the temple can be deemed to be a trustee and therefore dismissed the Writ Petition stating that the Manager is the competent to issue the impugned proceedings. The Full Bench of this Court in N. RAVINDRA MURTHY v. SHRI VEERABHADRA SWAMY TEMPLE, BONTHUPALLY, MEDAK DISTRICT ( (2008 alt (3) 287) inter alia held that it is competent to the trustee/board of the trustee or EO, as the case may be, to take disciplinary action against temple employees and temple employees discharging the functions of EO and if the trustee or board of trustee or EO fails to take such action including the action to suspend a temple employee pending enquiry, then alone the Commission and /or department officers can take action. Following the said judgment and for the reasons given therein, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is unsustainable and therefore it is set aside, holding that the first respondent is not empowered to issue show cause notice. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. KK/12-10-2011 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.644 of 2005 12-10-2011