THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.23098 of 2010 Dated: 20.09.2010 Between: Polavarapu Venkata Narasimha Rao and others. .. Petitioners. And The Commissioner of Endowments, Tilak Road, Boggulakunta, Abids, Hyderabad, And others. .. Respondents. ORDER: It appears, the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada, vide his proceedings dated 07.06.2010 appointed the petitioners as Non-Hereditary Trustees to the 4th respondent-Sri Lakshminarayana Swamy Temple. While so, questioning the said proceedings dated 07.06.2010, the 3rd respondent preferred R.P.No.5 of 2010 before the 1st respondent- Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, alleging that petitioners 1 and 3 were not professing Hindu religion and petitioner No.2 was running liquor shop in the village and, therefore, they are not entitled to be continued as trustees of the 4th respondent temple. Pending disposal of the said R.P.No.5 of 2010, the 1st respondent passed interim orders on 18.06.2010, keeping the proceedings dated 07.06.2010 of the 2nd respondent in abeyance. During pendency of the said R.P., the 1st respondent instructed the Vigilance Officer of his office to enquire into the matter and submit a report. Pursuant thereto, the Vigilance Officer visited the village and, after conducting enquiry into the matter, submitted his report to the 1st respondent on 12.07.2010. Thereupon, basing on the said report, respondent No.1 ultimately disposed of the said R.P.No.5 of 2010 by order dated 09.08.2010, holding that the enquiry regarding the antecedents before appointing the Trust Board was not conducted properly and, as such, set aside the proceedings dated 07.06.2010 and directed the 2nd respondent to call for fresh applications and appoint a fresh batch of Trustee, following due process. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no notice was served on the petitioners either before conducting the enquiry by the Vigilance Officer, who purported to have visited the village for the purpose of conducting enquiry, or before setting aside the order of the 2nd respondent and, therefore, the report submitted by the Vigilance Officer could not have been taken into consideration by the 1st respondent. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 supported the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that mainly on the ground that the petitioners 1 and 3 are not professing Hindu religion and the 2nd petitioner is an arrack vendor, the proceedings dated 07.06.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent, whereby the petitioners were appointed as trustees to the 4th respondent temple, was set aside. The Vigilance Officer, who was instructed by the 1st respondent to visit the village personally and enquire into the matter, submitted his report to the 1st respondent on 12.07.2010 and the contents of the said report, which are reiterated in the impugned order, read as under: “On 07.07.2010, personally visited the residence of Sri Runjula Anil, s/o. Ajrayya. He was not available in the house, but his wife and children are available, it was observed that there is a “CROSS” mark painted on the out side wall towards right side of the residence of above individual, it was also observed that the photo of Jesus Christ is hanging on the inside wall. Except that there are no other photos, Idols, calendars relating to Hindu God and Goddesses. Further, visited the residence of Smt. Sonti Veera Venkateswaramma, R-3. During the visit Smt. S.V. Venkateswaramma, her husband and her two sons are available. She mentioned that she belongs to Gouda caste, her family is dependent on sale of toddy. She admitted that she sells toddy to run her family, as her husband is a small farmer and he is cultivating 2-00 acres of land. In respect of Sri P. Venkata Narasimha Rao, during the visit the above said individual along with his family was not available. It was mentioned by the neighbours that the above individual went to Gudiwada, to his daughters place along with his family.” Whether the petitioners have become disqualified as per Section 19 (1) (h) (j) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, and whether the enquiry regarding antecedents of the petitioners before their appointment as trustees to the 4th respondent temple cannot be decided solely on the basis of the report submitted by the Vigilance Officer. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent authorities are directed to permit the petitioners to file fresh applications along with others, for the purpose of appointment of fresh batch of Trustees, and thereupon to consider the case of the petitioners along with others for the said purpose, without any prejudice to the order under challenge. Further, it is made clear that if the petitioners have already administered the oath of office by the concerned authority as per law, status quo as on today shall be maintained till then. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 20.09.2010 v v