HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.24837 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that the memo, dated 28-12-1998 issued by the first respondent and the proceedings, dated 06-071998 issued by the second respondent are illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and the same are liable to be set aside. The petitioner also requested to issue a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate steps in accordance with the recommendations of the House Committee of the 10th Legislative Assembly with regard to respondents 5 and 6. 2. The petitioner is a resident of Tandur. The sixth respondent-Vidya Vikas Samithi Trust also located at Tandur. The trust has been established by the Vidya Vikas Samithi under the A.P. Public Societies (TA) Registration Act, 1350 Fasli in the year 1996 to promote higher education and other educational activities by starting educational institutions. To protect the properties of the society, the sixth respondent trust was created by the Society. Subsequently, out of the property belonging to the Trust, a part of the property was sold to third parties as house sites, therefore, the petitioner approached this Court with the prayers as indicated above. 3. When the issue was raised in the A.P. Legislative Assembly, a House Committee was constituted and the House Committee through its report, dated 13-08-1999 observed that the properties of Vidya Vikas Samithi and Vidya Vikas Samithi Trust are public properties and also attracts the provisions of Act. The disposal of the public property by Sri M. Manik Rao is illegal and acted in a prejudicial manner to the object and purposes for which the Society or Trust was formed. The Committee, therefore, recommended to take action against the persons and also the officials responsible for the disposal of the public property for acting contrary to the objects and purposes of the Society and the property of the Society/Trust to be restored. The Committee also strongly recommended to the Government to constitute a Committee/Trust to look after the activities of the Vidya Vikas Samithi/Trust. 4. The petitioner when filed an Application before the Deputy Commissioner-third respondent under Section 87 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) to hold that the Vidya Vikas Samithi Trust is a charitable Trust as defined under the Act, the Deputy Commissioner Conducted an enquiry along with another Application filed by Vidya Vikas Samithi Trust for declaration that the Vidya Vikas Samithi Trust is not a charitable Trust and the publication made by the Commissioner of Endowments, dated 19-06-1997 is illegal and void and to set aside the same. The Deputy Commissioner, after considering the evidence adduced by both parties, passed an order on 05-05-1998 holding that the sixth respondent trust is a charitable trust under the Act and submitted the said order to the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad for confirmation as required under Section 87 (3) of the Act 30 of 1987. 5. The Commissioner of Endowments passed an order on 06- 07-1998 with reference to a representation made by the Chairman of the Trust Sri M. Manik Rao requesting him to set aside the order declaring the Trust as a charitable Trust under the Act. 6. The contention one behalf of the Trust is that the Trust incorporated under the deed of Trust, dated 16-05-1994 has no objects whatsoever and much less any charitable object. By taking into considation the above representation on behalf of the Trust, the Commissioner observed that the Vidya Vikas Samithi Trust was formed in the year 1973 with an intention to promote higher education and to take up other educational activities by starting colleges etc. The Trust is formed to administer the properties of Samithi. The Trust is only an Administrative body formed by the Samithi without having any aims and objectives of its own. It is also mentioned in the representation that there is no element of charity in the aims and objectives of the Samithi and in the absence of such element of charity, it cannot be presumed that it is a charitable institution merely on the ground that the object is educational purpose. The Commissioner further observed that the Deputy Commissioner overlooked the Judgment of the Supreme Court in MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI V. CHILDREN BOOK TRUST [1], which specifically holds that the educational per se is not charitable purpose. The Commissioner further observed that as seen from the order of the Deputy Commissioner and also the representation on behalf of the Samithi Trust, the Deputy Commissioner has not examined the point meticulously in the light of the Supreme Court Judgment. It is no doubt that the object of the Samithi is for educational purpose, but the charitable purpose has not been mentioned. It is the point for close examination in all its perspective whether there can be objective like educational purpose without element of charity and whether a society can be formed for achieving such objectives and if so, whether the Society or Trust holding its property would come within the ambit of the Act. With the above observations, the Commissioner remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh disposal according to law. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the order was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner to Commissioner for confirmation under Section 87 (3) of the Act, the Commissioner ought to have confirmed the order without setting aside the same or remanding the matter. But he passed an illegal order remanding the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh enquiry, therefore, he requested to set aside the impugned order by holding that it is not passed in accordance with law. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the object of forwarding the order of the Deputy Commissioner to the Commissioner is to consider whether the order was passed properly or whether the concerned authority failed to consider any aspect and if the order is on correct lines, to confirm the same. The Commissioner is not expected to be a rubber stamp in confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner mechanically without considering the legality or otherwise of the order. 9. When the Commissioner has right to confirm the order, he has also the right to set aside the order or order fresh enquiry with certain directions to the Deputy Commissioner and to again submit the order for confirmation. I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner about the powers of the Commissioner in remanding the matter. 10. After going the order of the Deputy Commissioner, this Court also felt that there is no specific finding given by him whether the activities of the Trust are charitable in nature, whether the Trust comes within the definition of charitable institution and whether it is established for charitable purpose as defined under Section 2 (5) of the Act. Whether the charitable trust established for spreading the education was without any gain or profit motive has to be tested before concluding, whether the Trust is charitable institution as defined under the Act. 11. After going through the order of the Commissioner, I am of the view that the Deputy Commissioner has to examine the above aspects and give a specific finding by way of a fresh order. 12. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed by holding that the order of the Commissioner, dated 06-07-1998 is not illegal and it is not liable to be set aside. No order as to costs. __________________ Dr. G.YETHIRAJULU, J Date: -03-2008 YCR [1] AIR 1992 SC 1456