IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 4295 of 2008 Between: E.Somaiah, S/o.late Rajamallu, R/o.4-26, Sumitranagar, Kukkatpally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Endowments, Tilak Road, Abids, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad. 3 Sri Kanaka Durga Ammavari Temple, Sumitranagar, Bagh Ameeri, Balanagar, Kukkatpally,Hyderabad- rep. by Executive Officer of Sri Kodandarama Swamy Temple, Kukkatpally. .....RESPONDENTS 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 direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 1st respondent i.e., the Commissioner of Endowments issued in his Memo.No.D3/8879/2008, dated 22-02-2008 appointing the Executive Officer of Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy Temple, Kukkatpally, Hyderabad, as bad, illegal, arbitrary and oppose to law in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. M.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.4295 OF 2008 ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the first respondent-Commissioner of Endowments dated 22.2.2008, appointing an Executive Officer to the third respondent-Temple as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner herein claims that he is the founder of the third respondent temple having constructed the same with his own funds in the year 1986 in a private land admeasuring 146 sq. yards. It is also claimed that he has been managing the affairs of the temple from the inception. While so, at the instance of some third parties, who alleged mismanagement of the temple funds by the petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments sealed the hundies on 26.10.2007 and started interfering with the day to day activities of the third respondent-Temple. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made a representation dated 3.12.2007 requesting the Commissioner of Endowments to permit him to open the hundi so as to meet the expenses of the temple including monthly salaries to the temple employees. It appears that the matter was referred to the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments to make necessary enquiry and accordingly the Deputy Commissioner Endowments vide notice dated 4.2.2008 called upon the petitioner to appear before him on 20.2.2008 along with the necessary documents to substantiate his claim. Since the said notice was received by the petitioner only on 23.3.2008, he made a request to the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments to fix some other date for proceeding with the enquiry. However, no such enquiry was conducted but on the other hand the impugned proceedings dated 22.2.2008 were issued by the Commissioner of Endowments placing the Executive Officer of Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy Temple, Kukatpalli in full additional charge of the third respondent- Temple. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed contending inter alia, that the impugned action of the first respondent in appointing the Executive Officer in the place of the petitioner even while the enquiry is pending before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments is arbitrary and illegal. It is also contended that though the impugned order refers to a compliant dated 19.2.2008 said to have been made by the fourth respondent, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to rebut the allegations made therein and therefore the impugned order being in violation of principles of natural justice is liable to be declared as illegal on that ground also. On behalf of the Commissioner of Endowments, a counter affidavit has been filed denying the plea of the petitioner that he was the founder of the temple and constructed the same with his own personal funds. It is also stated that the temple was constructed by donations collected from the public and that the petitioner was only a President of a self-styled Welfare Association of the locality. It is further explained that the site of the temple was donated by one Smt. Sumitrabai and the donations collected were referred to in the booklet published in the year 1991 and from the year 1985 to till date the temple is being managed by the committee elected by the local people. It is also alleged that the petitioner was misusing the income derived by the temple from the shop purchased for the benefit of the temple in the name of Sumitra Nagar Welfare Association and the temple committee. It is also pleaded that the petitioner was never declared either as a founder or founder family member by any competent authority and that being a temple published under Section 6 (c)(ii) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’) vide proceedings dated 8.2.2008 the 3rd respondent temple has been under the administrative control of the Commissioner of Endowments, R.R. District. It is further stated that there were two Committees viz., Sri Kanaka Durga Temple Committee represented by 4th respondent herein and another Committee known as Sumitra Nagar Welfare Association represented by the writ petitioner and there is a confrontation between the two committees. Since several complaints have been received from the local people and the devotees of the temple against present management with regard to unauthorized withdrawal of the huge funds from the bank and misuse of funds, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments after making discreet enquiry submitted a report stating that the income of the temple is decreasing in view of tussle in between the two committees and lack of proper handling of temple affairs by the present management. It was also proposed to keep the Manager of a nearby temple as in-charge of the third respondent temple to set right the affairs of the temple and for better management. The fact that the fourth respondent herein, who is the Ex-President of the Committee made a complaint that the funds of the temple were being misused has been admitted and it is stated that the Manager was appointed for the improvement and better management of the temple and that the alleged interference of the local MLA is absolutely false. Since the impugned order is only a stop gap arrangement for better and proper administration of the temple, the contention of the petitioner that the appointment was made without affording him an opportunity is unsustainable. A separate counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 4 to 7 stating that the third respondent-Temple was constructed with public funds in the open area left out in the lay out in the Sumitra Nagar, Bagh Ameeri, Balanagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. It is also stated that the names of the persons who have donated the amounts for construction of the temple have been written on the wall of the temple and that the temple has been registered under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 F. The claim of the petitioner that the temple was constructed on his own personal funds has been specifically denied and it is further stated that the petitioner was only a nominated president at the time of the registration of the Society and subsequently others were nominated to the post of President and other executive posts to manage the affairs of the temple. The writ petitioner is not in management of the society from the year 2007 and that the appointment of the Executive Officer under the impugned proceedings is perfectly legal and valid. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. From the material placed before this Court particularly the rival claims made by the parties, it is clear that the matter involves several disputed questions of fact which cannot be enquired into and decided by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At any rate, since admittedly an enquiry is pending before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, who is the competent authority under Section 87 (5) of the Act, it is open to both the parties to participate in the said enquiry and put forward their claims along with supporting material, in which event appropriate orders would be passed. So far as the impugned order dated 22.2.2008 is concerned, while relying upon the decisions in EXECUTIVE OFFICER, T.G. TEMPLES v. GOPAL INANI and P. SRIDHARA RAO v. GOVT. OF A.P., the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice. I do not find any substance in the said contentions since the impugned order placing the Executive Officer of Sri Kodandarama Swamy Temple, Kukatpally in full additional charge was passed only as an interim measure pending enquiry before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments. Since the impugned order is not a final order, the same cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal merely on the ground that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to rebut the alleged mismanagement of the temple affairs. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner while disputing the publication of the temple under Section 6 (c) (ii) of the Act contended that the Commissioner of Endowments ought not to have interfered with the affairs of the temple. Even assuming that the temple in question has not been published under Section 6 of the Act as on today, it is to be noted that under Section 8 (1) of the Act the Commissioner of Endowments has the power of general superintendence and control over all the charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments which includes the power to pass any order which may be deemed necessary to ensure that such institutions and endowments are properly administered and their income is duly appropriated for the purposes for which they were found or exist. Hence, the impugned proceedings cannot be held to be without jurisdiction. In the circumstances, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings dated 22.2.2008. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent – Deputy Commissioner of Endowments to complete the enquiry pending on his file as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order after hearing the petitioner as well as the respondents 4 to 7 herein following due process of law. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 14.07.2008 gbs Note:- CC in one week. (B/O) ka/gbs