IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.8793 of 2008 Between: 1 Sri Kota Satyanarayana S/o.Sri Venkataramanaiah Puttaparthi village & Mandal Ananthapur District 2 Sri C.Narasimhulu S/o.Tippanna Puttaparthi village & Mandal Ananthapur District 3 K.Nirmala W/o.K.Sudhakar Reddy Puttaparthi village & Mandal Ananthapur District 4 T.Venkatesh S/o.T.Sannayapu Puttaparthi village & Mandal Ananthapur District 5 E.Gangadhara S/o.Govindapu Puttaparthi village & Mandal Ananthapur District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner , Endowment Department, Government of AP, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments Department, Ananthapur 3 Sri Venugopalaswamy & Anjaneya Swamy Temple, rep by its Manager, Puttaparti village & Mandal Ananthapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in entertaining suo motu revision bearing No.RP02/2008 and passing interim order dated 27.3.2008 suspending the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent inRc.No.A3/70/2008/Adm dated 28.1.2008 which was served on the petitioners on 11.4.2008 which is unsustainable and illegal, and beyond the powers and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.JAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.8793 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent in entertaining revision bearing PR No.02/2008 suo motu, and passing interim order dated 27.03.2008 suspending the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 28.01.2008 is arbitrary and illegal. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as trustees of Sri Venugopalaswamy & Anjaneyaswamy temples on 06.02.2008 by the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Endowments and thereafter, in his presence they took oath as members of trust board and the 1st petitioner was elected as chairman of the trust board. Ever since taking oath, they are discharging their duties to the satisfaction of the temple as well as the pilgrims. While the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 27.03.2008, suspending the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 28.01.2008 on the ground that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction or authority to constitute the trust board and the appointment of the petitioners as members of the trust board is illegal. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that that the 1st respondent passed the impugned order without issuing any notice to the petitioenrs and there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the petitioners have not discharged their duties to the satisfaction of either the pilgrims or the temple, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments has drawn my attention to Section 92 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”) and contended that the impugned order is passed in accordance with law. Section 92 of the Act deals with the powers of the Commissioner to call for records and pass orders. Sub-Section (2) of Section 92 of the Act states that the Commissioner shall not pass any orders prejudicial to any party, without giving him an opportunity for making representation. Sub-section (3) of Section 92 of the Act deals with the powers of the Commissioner to stay the execution of any decision or order of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 92 of the Act, pending exercise of his powers. In the instant case, the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, has constituted the trust board and the same is suspended/stayed by the 1st respondent-Commissioner, pending adjudication of the revision. While suspending/stay any order passed by any authority, the 1st respondent need not issue notice to the opposite party. As per sub-section (2) of Section 92 of the Act, it is only while passing the final order, the 1st respondent is required to issue notice to the parties and hear both sides and then only pass appropriate orders. As the impugned order is passed under Section 92(3) of the Act, the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not given notice before passing the impugned order is untenable. Further, as already show cause was issued to the petitioners in proceedings R.C.No.BC 1/014057/08 dated nil March 2008, I deem it appropriate to direct the petitioners to offer detailed explanation enabling the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to submit their explanation, to the show cause notice bearing R.C.No.BC 1/014057/08 dated nil March 2008, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on receipt of such explanation, the 1st respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 21.04.2007 Note: Furnish C.C in three days. (B/o) sh To 1 The Commissioner , Endowment Department, Government of AP, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments Department, Ananthapur 3 The Manager, Sri Venugopalaswamy & Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Puttaparti village & Mandal Ananthapur District.