THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.10675 OF 2006 DATED MARCH, 2011 BETWEEN D.Venkata Krishna Rao …Petitioner And The Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.10675 OF 2006 ORDER: In exercise of powers conferred by Section 145(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1987’), the Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the first respondent, by proceeding dated 12.05.2000, permitted Sri Valluramma Temple, Valluru Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District, to take Sri Chandramouleswara Swamy Temple, Thurpunaidupalem Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District, on adoption for maintaining and administering the same. By proceeding dated 03.03.2006, the first respondent exercised powers under Section 145(3) of the Act of 1987 and withdrew the adoption of Sri Chandramouleswara Swamy Temple, Thurpunaidupalem Village, from Sri Valluramma Temple, Valluru. Again by proceeding dated 12.05.2006, the first respondent cancelled the withdrawal orders dated 03.03.2006 and ordered for continuation of the adoption of Sri Chandramouleswara Swamy Temple, Thurpunaidupalem, by Sri Valluramma Temple, Valluru. Within a week thereafter, the first respondent again changed his mind and, by proceeding dated 18.05.2006, cancelled the earlier proceeding dated 12.05.2006. Hence, this writ petition by the founder family member of Sri Chandramouleswara Swamy Temple, Thurpunaidupalem. It is the case of the petitioner that Sri Chandramouleswara Swamy Temple, Thurpunaidupalem, though possessed of landed properties admeasuring Ac.28.00 cents, is unable to maintain itself financially owing to the same being involved in disputes and litigation. According to the petitioner, it was owing to this that the initial adoption under Section 145(1) of the Act of 1987 was ordered under the proceeding dated 12.05.2000 by the first respondent. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the withdrawal of the adoption orders under the proceeding dated 03.03.2006, filed an appeal under Section 145(4) of the Act of 1987 to the Government. However, during the pendency of the said appeal, the later proceedings came to be issued in quick succession indicating the indecisiveness of the first respondent on the issue. The petitioner accordingly filed the present case alleging that the first respondent was being completely guided by the local M.L.A. and was therefore abusing his statutory power. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Ongole, Prakasam District, the second respondent, stated in his counter that the litigation in respect of the adopted temple’s landed properties had concluded and the said temple was therefore in a position to garner good income from the financial year 2005-06. The first respondent accordingly exercised powers under Section 145(3) of the Act of 1987 and issued proceeding dated 03.03.2006 withdrawing the adoption. However, on the request of the village elders, the Trust Board of the adopting temple is stated to have passed a resolution on 26.04.2006 seeking continuation of the adoption. Basing on the same, the first respondent issued the subsequent proceeding dated 12.05.2006 directing continuation of the adoption. However, as the devotees of the adopted temple raised an objection, the cancellation proceeding dated 18.05.2006 was stated to have been issued. Section 145(3) of the Act of 1987 makes it clear that where an institution adopted under sub-section (1) thereof is subsequently found to be capable of managing itself, the Commissioner may, in the interest of its proper management and administration, revoke the orders of adoption. The provision therefore requires an independent assessment by the Commissioner as to whether the adopted institution is in a position to fend for itself in so far as its management is concerned. The proceedings passed by the Commissioner in rapid succession, each having the effect of cancelling the earlier one, do not reflect any application of mind as to this crucial aspect stipulated in the statutory provision. Though in the counter details are spelt out as to how the adopted temple would now be in a position to financially fend for itself, the same are not forthcoming from any of the proceedings issued by the first respondent. As it is the specific case of the petitioner that these contradictory decisions were taken by the first respondent only at the behest of the local M.L.A., the records were called for. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments produced the record in a book form. Upon a specific query from the Court, he stated that this was the only record pertaining to the subject issue. The manner in which the record is maintained leaves a lot to be desired. If this is the manner in which official records are maintained, it indeed reflects a sorry state of affairs. The records are not even complete as proceedings/communications which find reference in the various proceedings issued by the first respondent are not found therein. Papers pertaining to the adoption of another temple, viz., Sri Someswara Swamy Temple, Valluru, by Sri Valluramma Temple, Valluru Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District, are also found in this file. Further, the file is maintained in a most haphazard manner without any chronology or order. The letter dated 10.02.2006 addressed by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Ongole, to the first respondent indicates that the Trust Board of Sri Valluramma Temple, Valluru Village, in its resolution dated 02.01.2006 resolved to withdraw the adoption of Sri Chandramouleswara Swamy Temple, Thurpunaidupalem Village, and accordingly the Assistant Commissioner recommended withdrawal of the adoption. Acting upon the same, the first respondent issued the first proceeding dated 03.03.2006. The letter dated 24.01.2006 addressed by the local M.L.A. which finds mention in the proceeding dated 03.03.2006 however does not find place in the record. On the other hand, there is an undated letter signed on what appears to be 29.04.2006, wherein the local M.L.A. requested the first respondent to maintain the adoption of Sri Chandramouleswara Swamy Temple, Thurpunaidupalem Village, with Sri Valluramma Temple, Valluru Village. Basing on this letter and the letter dated 02.05.2006 addressed by the Assistant Commissioner, Ongole, the first respondent issued the next proceeding dated 12.05.2006 directing continuation of the adoption. Relevant to note, in his letter dated 02.05.2006, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Ongole, stated that the Executive Officer, Sri Valluramma Temple, Valluru Village, submitted report dated 26.04.2006 requesting that the adoption of Sri Chandramouleswara Swamy Temple, Thurpunaidupalem, be continued with Sri Valluramma Temple, Valluru. The Assistant Commissioner further stated that the Trust Board of Sri Valluramma Temple, Valluru, passed a resolution on 26.04.2006 to continue the adoption of Sri Chandramouleswara Swamy Temple, Thurpunaidupalem, with Sri Valluramma Temple, Valluru. He therefore requested the first respondent to consider the request of the Executive Officer favourably and issue orders. The proceeding dated 12.05.2006 issued by the first respondent wholly relied upon the M.L.A.’s letter dated 29.04.2006 and the communication dated 02.05.2006 of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Ongole, and directed continuation of the adoption. The last proceeding dated 18.05.2006, while alluding to the above mentioned proceedings, made reference to the letter dated 15.05.2006 said to have been addressed by the local M.L.A. This letter also finds no place in the record. The proceeding dated 18.05.2006 is terse to the point of being cryptic and reads as under: “In the interest of better administration of the institutions, the orders issued in the reference 6th cited, continuing the adoption of Sri Chandramouleswara Swamy Temple, Thurpunaidupalem (V), Tangutur (M), Prakasam District by Valluramma Devasthanam, Valluru are hereby cancelled. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole and the Executive Officer of Sri Valluramma Temple, Valluru are requested to take further action in the matter to implement these orders without any deviation and for administering the temples as per rules.” Thus, within a span of three short months, the first respondent changed his mind three times. Needless to state, this kind of whimsical indecision on the part of the first respondent while discharging his statutory functions does not augur well in the context of good governance. The studied silence in the proceedings issued, as to what weighed with the first respondent for these quick changes of mind, is compounded by the facts disclosed in the counter, perhaps unwittingly, by the second respondent. The second respondent admitted in no uncertain terms that it was only due to the different stands taken by the village elders, the Trust Board of Sri Valluramma Temple, Valluru, and the devotees of the adopted temple that each abrupt turnabout was committed by the first respondent to suit the moment. This, needless to state, could not be valid justification for the volte-face of the first respondent. In any event, there is no evidence of the first respondent having enquired into and ascertained as to whether the adopted temple was financially fit and capable of managing its own affairs. It is only after formation of such opinion that the Commissioner could have exercised powers under Section 145(3) of the Act of 1987. In the absence of such an exercise, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the changing stances of the first respondent based on extraneous considerations cannot be sustained. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned proceeding dated 18.05.2006 and directing the continuation of the adoption of Sri Chandramouleswara Swamy Temple, Thurpunaidupalem Village by Sri Valluramma Temple, Valluru Village, until the Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, after due application of mind comes to the decision that the adopted temple is fit and capable of maintaining its own affairs. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. _________ MARCH, 2011. VGSR