THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA TUESDAY THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE W.P.No. 15826 OF 2009 Between: Ganni Veeraju …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. By its Secretary Revenue ( Endowments) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No. 15826 OF 2009 ORDER: This Court ordered notice before admission on 4-8-2009 and directed the status quo to be maintained for a limited period, which is being extended from time to time. 2. W.V.M.P.No. 2891 of 2009 is filed to vacate the interim order. At the time of hearing of the vacate application, the counsel on record made a request for final disposal of the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition itself is disposed of finally. 3. Sri Chandra Sekhar Illpakurti, learned counsel representing the petitioner had taken this Court to the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and has specifically pointed out the Rules governing the field and would maintain that the procedure as contemplated by the Rules had not been followed and until and unless the procedure is followed, the further proceedings in this regard cannot be taken. 4. Learned Additional Government Pleader for Endowments representing Respondents 1 to 5 would maintain that the procedure in accordance with law in fact had been followed and a clear stand had been taken by the 6th respondent in the counter affidavit in this regard. 5. Sri V.T.M.Prasad representing 6th respondent had taken this Court to the contents of the affidavit and would maintain that it may be that the writ petition is good old man aged about 84 years and may be that he was the Chairman of the temple in question for some time. Learned counsel would also comment that the petitioner is also at liberty to make an application in accordance with law and the same may be considered as per the provisions of the Act. 6. Heard the counsel. 7. The writ petitioner is aged about 84 years and it is also stated that he was Chairman of the Nookambika Temple, Chintaluru village, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District for some time. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents had not followed the procedure as contemplated by Rule 4(1) of the Act and issued notice dated 15-7-2009, no further steps to be taken in the constitution of the Trust Board. 8. It is averred in para 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the previous trust board, which was constituted by the respondents department during the year 2005 to the 6th respondent temple is still continuing as trustee for the same temple. Originally the trust board will be constituted for two years. It is mandatory under Rule 3 of the Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987 on the part of the 4th respondent department in whose territorial jurisdiction the institution or temple or endowment is situated shall, ninety days before the expiry of the term of the Trust Board, report to the authority competent to appoint trustees, about the date of expiry of the term of the Trust Board. Under Rule 4(1) of the authority competent to appoint trustees shall, forthwith on a report received under Rule 3, cause publication of the notice in Form-I. Under Rule 4(2) of the notice referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be affixed. 9. It is also stated that respondents 1 to 5 had not followed the correct procedure as contemplated by Rule 3 of the Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987 without following mandatory provisions enumerated under Rules of Appointment of Trustee, the 2nd respondent has no right to issue notice dated 15-7-2009 under Form No.1, Rule 4(1) under R.C.No. G 2/28223/2009. The 4th respondent has not reported the expiration of the term of the existing Trust Board within 90 days. 10. Further, it is stated that the writ petitioner filed W.P.No. 5956 of 2009 challenging the action in not conducting the public auction and the judgment made by this Court in W.P.No. 804 of 2007 also had been referred to. Certain further averments made in paras 5 and 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the non-compliance of the procedure had been specified. 11. In the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent a specific stand had been taken that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. It is also averred that it is true that previous Trust Board was constituted in the year 2005. It is not correct to state that the 5th respondent is Inspector Endowments Department is continuing as trustee for the same temple. There is no trust board for the 6th respondent temple i.e. Sri Nookambia Ammavari Temple, Chintaluru village, Alamuru Mandal after expiry of the period of the previous trust board in March, 2007 and the temple is under the administrative control of the Executive Officer as per Section 29 of the Endowments Act, 30/87. There is no dispute with regard to the Law and Rules referred in para 2 of the affidavit. After following the due procedure laid down under the Rules the 2nd Respondent issued the proceedings dated 15-7-2009 in R.C.No. G2/28223/2009. It is not correct to state that the proceedings are issued without following procedure and Rules. 12. It is also averred that the W.P.No. 5956 of 2009 is filed by the petitioner wherein a counter affidavit had been filed and the relief prayed in the said writ petition also had been referred to and the judgment made in the W.P.No. 804 of 2007 also had been referred to. A specific stand had been taken that these writ petitions No. 5956 of 2009 and 804 of 2007 have relevancy to the present dispute. It is also averred in para 4 of the affidavit that it is true the writ petition herein filed W.P.No. 5956 of 2009 when the Endowments Department proposed to conduct public auction of the rights of Tullu Billa and Varabovu on 27-3-2009 as per the direction of this Court in W.P.No. 804/2007. It is not correct to state that till the disposal of the W.P.No. 5956 of 2009 the Endowments Department has no authority to constitute the trust board for 6th respondent temple. It is submitted that the subject matter in W.P.No. 5956 of 2009 and W.P.No. 804 of 2007 are different and distinct and no orders are issued restraining the competent authority from constituting the Trust Board for 6th respondent temple. It is submitted that one Namala Srinivas, s/o: Ramakrishna challenged the auction proceedings proposed to be conducted on 21-3-2009 by filing another writ petition, W.P.No. 5786 of 2008 and filed W.P.M.P.No. 7034 of 2008 and the temple filed W.P.M.P.No. 1579 of 2008 in the said writ petition W.P.No. 5956 of 2009 and while disposing of the said petitions, this Court found that the temple in possession is at liberty to charge for rituals conducted by the petitioner i.e. Sri Nookambika Ammavari Temple through tickets from the devotees and the amounts so called shall be deposited separately into any Nationalized Bank and the said orders were passed on 16-3- 2009. Accordingly, the temple has fulfilled to the directions of this Court and deposited the amount of total Rs. 1,18,638/- which is received by way of collection from 25-3-2009 to 9-4-2009 in S.B. Account of the temple separately so the entire allegations made in para 4 of the affidavit of the petitioner are false. So, it is apparent that the subject matter in the other writ petitions are quite different and distinct and the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the proceedings of the 2nd respondent-Commissioner and stall the constitution of trust Board for the 6th respondent temple. From the beginning the writ petitioner is causing hurdles and putting spokes in smooth administration of 6th respondent temple and filing writ petitions and other proceedings with false and untenable allegations. The petitioner intentionally misrepresented the facts in his affidavit. 13. Further, specific stand had been taken in para 5 that the procedure as contemplated by the Rules had been followed and because of the interim order made by this Court the further proceedings in pursuance of the proceedings R.C.No. G2/28233/2009, dated 15-7-2009 cannot be further proceeded with. 14. In the light of the clear specific stand taken in the counter affidavit relating to the following of the procedure as contemplated by Rules 3 and 4 aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that no positive direction, as such, can be granted as prayed for by the writ petitioner in the present writ petition. However, it is stated that the petitioner is aged about 84 years and it is also stated that this good old man is having some devotion towards the deity, this Court does hope that this aspect to be taken note of and liberty is given to the petitioner to make appropriate application in accordance with law and this Court also does hope the same may be duly considered. Except making the above observation, no further direction, as such, can be granted. 15. Subject to the observation made above, this writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 6th October,2009. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No. 15826 OF 2009 6th October, 2009.