The Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy Writ Petition No.1079 of 2010 Order: In this Writ Petition, the petitioners, who claim to be the donors (Ubhayamdaarulu) seek declaration, by way of Mandamus, that the action of the first respondent, in taking steps for appointment of non-Ubhayamdaarulu as Board of Trustees and Chairman of the third respondent-Sri Swayambhu Sree Varasiddhi Vinayakaswamy Devasthanam, Kanipakam Village, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District, contrary to Section 18 and Rule 8 (a) (iii) of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act & Rules, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, direction to the first respondent to consider and appoint them as Board of Trustees of the said temple. The first respondent-Government issued GO.Rt.No.1604, Revenue (Endts.II) Department, dated 12- 11-2009, inviting applications from the interested persons for constitution of non-hereditary Trust Board to the third respondent-Temple. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though they made representation to the respondents stating that they, being Ubhayamdaarulu, have a preferential right in the proposed Trust Board, the first respondent, without considering the said representation, is taking steps to appoint the Trust Board with the non-locals and non-Ubhayamdaarulu. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that it has been the convention from ancient times that local Ubhayamdharulu are being appointed as Chairman and members of the Trust Board of the third respondent-temple, and therefore, preference should be given to the petitioners. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent-temple, that in view of the provision under Section 42 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’), petitioners cannot seek any appointment basing on the scheme, which was in existence earlier. Be that as it may, it is to be noted that even according to the petitioners, as of now, the Board of Trustees has not been constituted. The petitioners have approached this Court even before constitution of the Board of trustees on mere apprehension. Whether the petitioners are the Ubhayamdharulu or not and whether such scheme was in force earlier or not will have no bearing after amendment to the provisions of the Act. Inasmuch the petitioners have already approached the first respondent by way of representation, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the first respondent to consider the petitioners’ representation, dated 27th December, 2009, and thereafter, constitute the Board of Trustees to the third respondent-Temple only in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Subject to the above directions, the Wit Petition is disposed of. However, it is left open to the first respondent- Government to consider the claims of various other applicants also and their eligibility while constituting the Board of Trustees to the third respondent-Temple in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J Dated 27th January, 2010 lur