IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 2017 of 2004 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 04.11.2004 in WP No. 14596 of 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Executive Officer, Sri Durgalamma Ammavari Temple, Spring Road, Velampet, Visakhapatnam Dist. ..... APPELLANT AND Koduru Chittibaby Chowdary and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) Aggrieved by the order dated 04.11.2004 made in WP No.14596 of 2001 by a learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition and setting aside the conditions imposed on the writ petitioner – first respondent herein and entitling him to all benefits and to discharge all the functions as that of a Founder Trustee of the institution, the present Writ Appeal is filed by the Institution - fourth respondent in the Writ Petition. The case of the writ petitioner - first respondent herein, who claims to be a devotee of Sri Durgalammavaru deity, Poorna Market, Velampet, Visakhapatnam, is that he has spent substantial amount for development of the temple, which has acquired great importance in Visakhapatnam during the recent past. Thereafter, he filed an application to recognize him as a Founder Trustee, which was rejected by the fourth respondent herein through proceedings dated 20.09.1998. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent preferred a Revision Petition No. 86 of 1998 before the third respondent herein. Pending the above Revision Petition, the first respondent filed W.P. No. 5689 of 1999 before this court, which was disposed of directing the third respondent herein to dispose of the Revision Petition. The third respondent, by order dated 04.05.2001, allowed the revision partly, recognizing the first respondent as the Founder Member but disentitling him to certain other benefits. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.05.1991 passed in Revision Petition No. 86 of 1998 by the third respondent herein, the first respondent filed the above writ petition. The learned Single Judge by the order impugned herein has allowed the writ petition setting aside the conditions imposed by the third respondent herein and entitling the first respondent to all the benefits to which a founder trustee is entitled to. Aggrieved thereby, the fourth respondent – Institution filed the present Writ Appeal. Mr. V.T.M. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Institution contended that though the first respondent herein has renovated the temple structure and also installed new Idols by his contributions, yet it does not confer absolute right on him to claim himself as a founder trustee in terms of Sec. 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity the Endowments Act). Contending that a ‘Founder’ in respect of the institution of endowment existing at the commencement of this Act means, the person who was recognized as hereditary trustee under the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 or a Member of his family recognized by the competent authority and in respect of an institution or endowment established after such commencement, the person who has founded such institution or endowment or a member of his family and recognized as such, by the competent Authority, learned counsel submits that since the first respondent does not fall in any of the above categories, the finding of the learned Single Judge that he is entitled to be treated as a founder trustee is liable to be set aside. Adverting to explanation II to Sec. 17, which defines the Member of the family of the founder, as children, grant children and so in agnatic line of succession for the time being in force and declared or recognized as such by the relevant appointing authority, he contends that since the first respondent does not fall in any of these categories, the third respondent and the learned Single Judge, as well, erred in recognizing him as founder trustee. He further contends that in the absence of any material that the first respondent belongs to the family of the founder, as the temple has been constructed 200 years back, he cannot be considered as a founder trustee. He also contends that as per the provisions of the Endowments Act, a person to be a Trustee, has to apply as and when notification is issued for appointment as a trustee for the constitution of the Trust Board and, therefore, as and when such a notification is issued, the first respondent can, as well, apply and his case shall be considered. Per contra, Ms. N.Shoba, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has reiterated the same stand and raised the same contentions as were raised before the learned single Judge. Admittedly, neither the first respondent belongs to the family of the founder nor the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Endowments Act for appointment of founder trustee or the trustee had been followed to recognize him as the founder trustee. It is his case that since he has renovated the entire temple structure and installed the new Idols and offered yeoman services to the temple, he should be recognized as founder trustee. Inasmuch as the first respondent neither satisfies the requirements to be a founder trustee nor does he fall under the category of a member of the family of the founder, the observation of the learned single Judge that he shall be treated as a found trustee is contrary to the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the findings recorded by the third respondent herein are liable to be confirmed. Accordingly, the finding of the learned single Judge conferring the status of a founder trustee on the first respondent is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. However, in view of the contributions made by the first respondent for renovating the temple structure and installing the new Idols and the services offered by him, the privileges and perquisites as promised by the Board and Executive Officer and to consider his name while constituting the Board of Trustees pursuant to the notification, deserves acceptance, subject, however, to the provisions of the Endowments Act. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal setting aside the finding of the learned Single Judge to the extent of conferring the status of a founder trustee on the first respondent, confirming the order dated 4.5.2001 passed by the third respondent herein in Revision Petition No. 86 of 1998. Further we make it clear that as and when notification is issued by the Authorities for constitution of Trust Board, the first respondent is at liberty to apply for appointment of a Trustee and his same shall be considered in terms of Se. 18(c) of the Endowments Act. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar December 4, 2009 MAS.