IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.12663 OF 2009 Between: Sri Ommi Pydi Raju, S/o.Late Ramaswamy .... PETITIONER AND The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Visakhapatnam and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.12663 OF 2009 ORDER: This Court issued rule nisi on 29.06.2009 and on 28.10.2009 interim suspension was granted for a period of three weeks. 2. W.V.MP.No.3635 of 2009 is filed to vacate the interim order. 3. Heard the counsel. 4. The writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari calling for records pertaining to the impugned order of respondent No.1 i.e., The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Visakhapatnam, vide Rc. No.A1/3091/09 Adm., dated 20.06.2009 and consequently to quash the impugned proceedings of respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Sections 10 and 15(3) of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’) and pass such other suitable orders. 5. It is stated that the petitioner belongs to Yadava by caste and his ancestors had been worshiping Lord Shiva as Paravatheswara, since times immemorial. Out of devotion to Lord Paravatheswara, his family has several centuries. He had constructed Paravatheswaralayam in the year 1990 in front of his house admeasuring 280 square yards in Ganesh Nagar, Seethamapeta. The temple is also known as Parvtheswaralayam and they had also appointed an Archaka to conduct daily rituals. 6. It is further stated that the temple is essentially a private temple frequently visited by his family members. All the expenses are borne by his joint family members. 7. It is also stated that the temple had never been registered under Section 6 of the Act 30/87, since the temple had always been a private institution. 8. It is also stated that while so respondent No.1 i.e., The Deputy Commissioner, Endowment Department, Visakhapatnam, had issued impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.A1/3091/09 Adm., dated 20.06.2009 appointing respondent No.2 i.e., Sri B. Murali Mohan as Single Trustee to the temple. By virtue of the said order the rituals etc., which are now being performed as per the family tradition will be discontinued, defeating the very purpose of building the temple. Aggrieved by the order of respondent No.1 specified supra, he approached this Court seeking appropriate relief. 9. Section 15(3) of the Act aforesaid had also been referred to and Section 10 of the Act had also been referred to. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 it is stated that Sri Paravatheswaralayam situated at Ganesh Nagar, Visakhapatnam is a public religious Institution published under Section 6(c) of the Act on 17.03.1994 and it is mentioned as Sl.No.853. It is also stated that it is not a private Temple as averred by the petitioner herein. It is a public Temple where several devotees in and around the area visit the temple and perform poojas and also make votive offerings to the deity. Annual functions as well as during the month of Karteeka Masam special poojas are being performed in the temple and during that period several devotees visit the temple. The temple also had hundis, which clearly proves that it is a public religious temple. 11. It is also stated that it is true that respondent No.1 i.e., The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Visakhapatnam, had issued proceedings vide Rc.No.A1/3091/09 Adm., dated 20.06.2009 appointing this respondent as Single Trustee to the temple. But it is not true that by virtue of the said order the rituals etc., which are now being performed as per the family tradition will be discontinued, defeating the very purpose of building the temple, is totally false and it is invented to mislead this Court on material facts. It is also stated that Section 15 of the Act is totally misrepresented by the petitioner. He had produced before this Court Section 15 of the old Act i.e., Act 30/87. In this connection it is also stated that Section 15 of the Act was already substituted by Act No.33 of 2007 with effect from 03.01.2008. Section 15 of the Act 33/2007 reads as follows: “Section 15: In respect of a Charitable or Religious Institution or Endowment:- (1) Included in the list published under clause (a) of Section 6, where the income of the Institution exceeds Rupees one crore per annum, the Government shall constitute a Board of Trustees consisting of nine persons appointed by them, where the income of the institution is between Rs.25 lakhs to Rupees one crore per annum, the Dharmika Parishad shall constitute a Board of Trustees consisting of nine persons. (2) Where the income of the institution is between Rs.2.00 lakhs to 25 lakhs per annum, the Commissioner shall appoint a Board of Trustees consisting of five persons and where the income of the institutions is less than Rs.2 lakhs per annum, the Deputy Commissioner concerned may constitute a Board of Trustees consisting of three persons in respect of each such temple keeping in view of the traditions, sampradayams and wishes of the devotees. Provided that the Deputy Commissioner may either in the interest of the institution or endowment or any other sufficient cause or for reasons to be recorded in writing appoint a Single Trustee instead of a Board to Trustees. Provided ……… Sub-section (1) of Section 19; Provided ……… Till a new board of Trustees is constituted. Provided ……… Constitution of the new Trust Board. Provided ……… Support to Hindu Religious Institution.” 12. It is also stated that Section 15 of the Act make it clear that it is a Deputy Commissioner who is the competent authority to make appointment of a Single Trustee or Board of Trustees. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that it is Assistant Commissioner who had power to appoint a trustee is totally untenable. The Deputy Commissioner never usurped power under Section 15. Under the amended Act 33/2007 it is only the Deputy Commissioner who is competent to appoint a Single Trustee. It is true that when a statute confers power on a particular authority it is only for the said authority to exercise such power and even an authority which is administratively superior to the statutory authority, cannot exercise such power is true and correct. As such the Deputy Commissioner by virtue of the powers conferred on him under the statue has rightly exercised such power and made an appointment of a Single Trustee in the interest of institution. 13. It is also further stated that the petitioner is taking shelter under the old Section 15 rather than the amended Section 15, which came into force with effect from 03.01.2008 as per the amended Act 33/2007. The amended Act clearly and unambiguously speaks that it is only the Deputy Commissioner who is the competent authority under the Act to appoint a Single Trustee instead of a Board of Trustees. Hence the contention of the petitioner that the orders dated 20.06.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Visakhapatnam is violative of provisions of the Act is totally untenable and are intended to mislead this Court on material facts and get an order or other in his favour. 14. It is further stated that there are several gold and silver articles donated by the devotees, which are in the hands of the petitioner herein. As there are several complaints against him from the public and in the interest of institution by invoking the powers conferred upon him under the Act, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments in his proceedings Rc.No.A1/3091/2009 Adm., dated 20.06.2009 passed an order appointing Sri B. Murali Mohan, Manager, Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Zinc Area, Gajuwaka (T & M), Visakhapatnam District as a Single Trustee to Sri Parvatheswara Alayam, Ganesh Nagar, Seethammapeta, Vishakhapatnam. In such circumstances the dismissal of the writ petition had been prayed for. 15. As already aforesaid specific stand had been taken in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 that the said Sri Parvatheswara Alayam at Ganesh Nagar, Seethammapeta, Visakhapatnam is a public institution published under Section 6(c) of the Act aforesaid, Act 30/87, on 17.03.1994 and is mentioned in Sl.No.853 and thus it is a public temple where several devotees in and around visit temple and perform poojas. 16. In the light of the said stand taken in the counter affidavit, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the same shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J November 27, 2009 MD