IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 23320 of 2007 Between: 1 Kellampalli Hanumantha Rao S/o Lakshmaiah 2 Kellampalli Sunder Rao S/o Naraiah 3 Kellampalli Veeraiah S/o Ramaiah 4 Kellampalli Atchaiah S/o Venkaiah 5 Kellampalli Subba Rao S/o Kotaiah 6 Muppalla Nageswara Rao S/o Ramaiah 7 Talluri Pullaiah S/o Pullaiah (All are Residents of Ganapavaram Village Nadendla Mndal, Guntur District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner of Endowments A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments Guntur Zone, Guntur. 3 the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Guntur Zone, Guntur. 4 Kellampalli Venkateswara Rao S/o veeraiah Ganapavaram Village, Nandendla Mandal, Guntur 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 will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in not conducting enquiry against the 4th respondent based on the representations dt 26-09-2007 and 08- 10-2007 made by the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and consequentially to direct the 3rd respondent to conducting enquiry against the 4th respondent based on the representations dt 25-09-2007 and 08-10-2007 made by the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and consequentially to direct the 3rd respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry on the set oﬀ allegations made against the 4th respondent based on the representations on the petitioners dt 26-09-2007 and 08-10- 2007 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of this case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.ANANDA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioners claim to have made representations, dated 26.09.2007 and 08.10.2007, making certain allegations against the fourth respondent in the context of the administration of the assets of Sri Someswara (Veerabadraswamy) Temple (for short ‘the Temple’) at Ganapavaram, Guntur District to the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur, the third respondent herein. The copies thereof are said to have been marked to respondents 1 and 2. Their grievance is that no action has been taken thereon. The petitioners referred to various allegations made in the representations and it is alleged that the fourth respondent is acting contrary to the interest of the Temple. Respondents 1 to 3 on the one hand, and the fourth respondent on the other, ﬁled separate counter- affidavits. It is stated that the petitioners have instituted proceedings in R.P.No.5 of 2007 before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, M.Z.III, Hyderabad and on a detailed consideration thereof, the R.P. was dismissed on 20.08.2008. They contend that the petitioners themselves acted contrary to the interest of the Temple on several occasions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent. The petitioners, no doubt, submitted two representations, dated 26.09.2007 and 08.10.2007, to respondents 1 to 3 making certain allegations against the fourth respondent. There would have been some possibility for directing the said respondents to deal with the representations, had it been a case where the representations are not preceded by any statutory proceedings. The petitioners themselves ﬁled R.P.No.5 of 2007 against respondents 3 and 4 making certain allegations. The R.P. was dismissed on 20.08.2008 and it is represented that the petitioners are availing their further remedies vis-à-vis the said order. Even assuming that the allegations contained in the representations are somewhat diﬀerent from those canvassed in the R.P., the petitioners can, certainly, institute a separate R.P. with the allegations contained in the two representations referred to above. In such an event, the authority would be in a position to examine the allegations and counter-allegations with reference to evidence before it. The parties would also have an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their cases. Consideration of the representations on administrative side without conducting any detailed enquiry would not only be halfhearted, but is also outside the scope of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to work out their remedies in accordance with the provisions of law. There shall be no order as to costs. _​___________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J) Dt:18.09.2008 kdl