IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.21217 of 2009 BETWEEN: Lotavat Somla and another .. Petitioners AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endts.II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep., by its Principal Secretary and others ..Respondents ORDER: On 16.02.2009, the learned Assistant Government Pleader had taken notice on respondent Nos.1 and 2. Sri Ch.Sateesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel had taken notice on behalf of respondent No.3. The matter is coming up for admission today. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the G.O.Rt., issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endts.II) Department in G.O.Rt.No.1203, dated 18.08.2009 calling for the applications under Section 15 of the Endowments Act for being appointed as trustees to Sri Pabbati Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Maddimadugu Village, Amrabad Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, as illegal, arbitrary, opposed to law, contrary to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the petitioners herein pray that the same may be quashed. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, on instructions, states before this Court that the reclassification of the temple is pending consideration. The same is recorded. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the subject institution Sri Pabbati Anjaneya Swamy Temple is an institution registered under the provisions of the Endowments Act under Act 17 of 1966 and falls under the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent herein since the income of the institution crosses Rs.1 crore and as per Act 30 of 1987 read with amended Act 33 of 2007, the Government is the competent authority for constituting the Board of Trustees to institutions whose income is above Rs.1 crore. However though the institution had attained an income of over and above Rs.1 crore, the institution still is classified only under Section 15(2) wherein the Deputy Commissioner is the competent authority to appoint Board of Trustees since no re-classification had been made till date to bring the institutions under the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent herein. Further, it is stated that the petitioners herein are the members of the Family of Founders having been recognized by the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad in O.A.No.87 of 2006. After the abolition of the hereditary rights and bringing into force Act 30 of 1987 since the petitioners hail from the family of founders i.e., the subject institution was originally constructed by the petitioners’ family and till date their family members are actively participating in all the periodical festivals and the fact of the petitioners’ family spending money from their own personal funds is also indicated by the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments in O.A.No.87 of 2006. The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad after an elaborate trial had declared both the petitioners as founder members of Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple at Maddimadugu under Section 87(1)(h) of the Act by his order dated 02.06.2008. Though the temple is popular as Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple, the registration extracts made under Section 43 of the Act had recorded the temple as Sri Pabbati Anjaneya Swamy Temple at Maddimadugu Village, and as such, the notification is issued on the said name. Consequent to their declaration being made by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments under Section 87(1)(h) of the Act, the petitioners applied to the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments to fix rotation for functioning as members of the founder’s family to the competent authority i.e., the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments who had given the declaration and also the competent authority since the 3rd respondent temple comes under the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments as per the classification. The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments by his proceedings in Rc.No.A4/4366/08, dated 13.11.2008 fixed the period of rotation for functioning as member of the founder’s family for a period of two years each to the petitioners 1 and 2, since in the event of the Trust Board being constituted the 1st petitioner would head the Trust Board first term and the 2nd petitioner would head the trust board for the next term. The said rotation was fixed, since it is mandatory on the part of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments to fix rotation if, the founder trustees are more than one. It is also averred that consequent to the petitioners being declared as members of the Founder’s Family, certain aggrieved parties had approached this Court by filing two C.M.As.1248 and 1382 of 2008 and this Court though granted interim suspension initially did not extend the period of suspension since the very maintainability of the C.M.A. itself was doubted since the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments was not the order of a Tribunal and the issue relating to the maintainability of C.M.A. before the this Court was referred to a Division Bench in a batch of C.M.As., i.e., C.M.A.No.1459 of 2008 and others. Thus, the issue as to the maintainability of the C.M.A., is a matter yet to be decided by this Court. Both the C.M.As., were referred to the Division Bench and both the C.M.As., are pending final adjudication without the interim order being extended and as such the petitioners are functioning as the members of the founder’s family. Consequent to the interim order not being extended, the petitioners also had assumed charge as a member of the founder’s family and the same is indicated in the letter dated 04.07.2009 and the same also acknowledged by the Executive Officer of the subject institution. It is also the case of the writ petitioners that while things stood thus to the utter surprise of the petitioners, a notification for constituting a Board of Trustees was issued by the 1st respondent in G.O.Rt.No.1203, dated 18.08.2009. A perusal of the G.O., clearly indicates that all the trustees to be appointed to the subject institution would only be non-hereditary trustees and not a single line is quoted about the petitioners who are entitled to be nominated as Chairman, Board of Trustees to the 3rd respondent temple. A perusal of the G.O.Rt.No.1203, dated 18.08.2009 indicates an undisputed fact that the petitioners who are to be nominated as Chairman, Board of Trustees were ignored as per Sections 17 and 20 of the Endowments Act. It is relevant to extract the G.O.Rt.No.1203, dated 18.08.2009 hereunder: GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Abstract Endowments Department – Religious – Sri Pabbati Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Maddimadugu (V), Maredugu Gram Panchayat, Amarabad (M), Mahabubnagar District – Constitution of Non-Hereditary Trust Board u/s.15(1) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 – Notification – Issued. REVENUE (ENDTS.II) DEPARTMENT G.O.Rt.No.1203 Dated:18.08.2009 From the CED Lr.No.11/29121/2009, dt.09.07.2009 -:o:- O R D E R: In the circumstances reported by the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad in his letter read above, Government after examining the matter have decided to issue notification to Sri Pabbati Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Maddimadugu (V), Maredugu Gram Panchayat, Amarabad (M), Mahabubnagar District. In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section 1 of Section 15 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 read with sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments, appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987, Government hereby notify in the Form-I and II appended to this order inviting applications from the interested persons for constitution of Non-Hereditary Trust Board to Sri Pabbati Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Maddimadugu (V), Maredugu Gram Panchayat, Amarabad (M), Mahabubnagar District. (BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH) K.V.RAMANACHARY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that the reclassification of the temple is pending consideration. It is needless to say that in the peculiar factal situation, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate steps, in this regard, after completion of the reclassification, said to be pending for consideration. Till then, no further steps, in this regard, shall be taken. It is also needless to say that the G.O.Rt.No.1203, dated 18.08.2009, cannot be sustained, and accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ P. S. NARAYANA, J 8th October 2009 KH