THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 14617 of 2008 Oral order: Assailing the action of the respondent, namely the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, in issuing Notification No.A4/2798/2008, dated 18.06.2008 calling for applications for constitution of the Trust Board in respect of Sri Prasannanjaneya Swamy Devasthanam, situated at Jawahar Nagar, Moulaali, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 (for short “the Act”) the petitioner, namely the President of the Temple Committee, filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Temple is not registered under Section 6-C of the Act and it is a private Temple, and as such, neither the respondent nor the Government, has any authority or power to issue the impugned Notification, for constitution of Trust Board. Hence, he prayed that the impugned notification be quashed. This Court, by order dated 16.07.2008, while admitting the writ petition, granted interim stay of the constitution of the Trust Board to the Temple pursuant to the impugned Notification. While the writ petition is pending two persons claiming themselves to be the Secretary and President of the Temple, filed W.P.M.P. No. 25063 of 2008 praying to permit to get themselves impleaded as party respondents, which was allowed by this Court today by a separate order. They also filed W.V.M.P. (Sr). No. 99889 of 2008, praying to vacate the interim order granted by this Court on 16.07.2008. Respondent No.1, namely the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments did not file any counter. However, on the basis of the para-wise remarks obtained from respondent No.1, she submitted that the Temple was registered under Section 6 (c) of the Act, and thereafter, Notification was issued on 29.01.2008. Since the Temple is notified as Section 6(c) Temple, the Government has the power to constitute Trust Board. Hence, she submitted that no fault can be found with the action of respondent No.1 in issuing the impugned notification. The learned counsel for the petitioner, responding to the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments submitted that even though the Temple was notified as Section 6(c) Temple, the fact remains, the Temple can be treated as Section 6(c) only from the date of publication of the Notification in the Gazette, which is mandatory. He submitted that since the notification was published in the Gazette on 31.07.2008, the impugned notification which has been issued much before the publication of the Gazette, is void and cannot be sustained. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Even though the Temple was notified under Section 6(c) of the Act on 29.01.2008, the facts remains, the notification was published in the Gazette on 31.07.2008, from which date, the Temple attained the status of Section 6(c) Temple. However, much before the publication of the notification in the Gazette, respondent No.1 issued the impugned notification for constitution of the Trust Board to the Temple. Since the impugned notification is much prior to the publication of the notification, notifying the Temple as Section 6(c) Temple, the impugned notification is without force. In the above view of the matter, the impugned notification cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside. However, now that the notification, notifying the Temple as Section 6(c) Temple, has been published in the Gazette on 31.07.2008, respondent No.1 is at liberty to issue fresh Notification for constitution of Trust Board of the Temple. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 24th June, 2009 KSR