THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.2318 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner states that he has been recognized as member of the founder family of Sri Shiridi Saibaba Temple, by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Karimnagar, through proceedings, dated 05.08.1997, along with six others. His grievance is that the respondents are trying to install the deities of Lord Ganesh and Lord Dattatreya in the premises of the temple. Another grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are renaming the temple as “Sri Vijaya Ganapathi Shiridi Saibaba Devalayam”, from the name “Sri Shiridi Sai Baba Temple”. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the two steps said to have been taken by the respondents. Sri M.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that Sri Shiridi Sai Baba Temple is purely secular in nature and that the Authorities under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’), do not have any right to administer the same. He contends that assuming that the temple is covered by the provisions of the Act, the respondents ought to have taken steps under Section 45 for changing the name. Heard learned Government Pleader for Endowments. The plea of the petitioner as regards the applicability of the provisions of the Act to the temple is self-contradictory. On the one hand, he got a declaration in the year 1997, to the effect that he is a member of founder family by approaching the Assistant Commissioner under the relevant provisions of the Act, and on the other hand, he now claims that the temple is not governed by the provisions of the Act. Such a plea cannot be accepted at all. Installation of the deities in a temple is a matter within the purview of the concerned agency, which is in-charge of administration. If the petitioner is part of the administration/management of the temple, he ought to have raised an objection. On the other hand, if he is not part of the administration, he cannot raise any objection to it. So far as the complaint as to the renaming of the temple is concerned, it is no doubt true that Section 45 of the Act, prescribes the procedure to be followed, whenever the name of a religious institution is to be changed. However, the petitioner has assumed to himself that the name of the temple was changed. Before forming such an opinion, he ought to have approached the respondents, as to whether the name was changed at all and if so whether the procedure under Section 45 of the Act was followed. Without taking any steps, he has straight away approached this Court. Further, disputes of this nature can be resolved by instituting proceedings under Section 45 itself or Section 87 of the Act. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, rejecting the plea of the petitioner as to the installation of the deities, but leaving it open to him to approach the Tribunal constituted under Section 87 of the Act. However, before the Tribunal, he shall make it clear as to whether he still holds the view that Sri Shiridi Sai Baba temple is not governed by the provisions of the Act. The same shall be taken into account by the Tribunal before entertaining the proceedings. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.27.01.2011. GJ