THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7444 of 2011 Dated 22.03.2011 Between: Bodduluri Mangamma …Petitioner And The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Smt. G. Jhansi Counsel for respondent No.1: Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri V.T.M. Prasad, standing counsel for Endowments The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in constituting a board of non-hereditary trustees to Sri Sitarama Swamy Temple, Gundlapalem Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District, vide his proceedings in Rc.No.A4/6229/09 dated 25.08.2009, by appointing respondent Nos.3 to 5 as trustees as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Smt. G. Jhansi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing respondent No.1 and Sri V.T.M. Prasad, standing counsel for Endowments representing respondent No.2. The petitioner pleaded that her father constructed respondent No.2 temple in the year 1944-45 with his own funds and has endowed Acs.16.00 of land to the temple during his lifetime. That by proceedings dated 13.04.1977, the petitioner was appointed as hereditary trustee in place of her father and that consequent on abolition of hereditary trusteeship, the petitioner made an application on 10.11.1998 for recognising her as founder family member. The petitioner filed O.A.No.98 of 2008 before respondent No.1 for declaring her as member of the founder family. The said O.A. was dismissed, by order dated 20.07.2009. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed A.S.No.335 of 2009 in the Court of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur. While the said appeal was pending, the impugned proceedings were issued on 25.08.2009 by respondent No.1, whereby the non-hereditary trust board was constituted with respondent Nos.3 to 5 as trustees. By judgment dated 09.03.2010, A.S.No.335 of 2009 was allowed declaring the petitioner as member of the founder family. The petitioner pleaded that she has made a representation on 15.04.2010 to respondent No.1 to act on the judgment by appointing her as the trustee to manage respondent No.2 temple. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.1 and constitution of non- hereditary trust board, the present writ petition is filed. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that respondent No.1 has been deliberately ignoring the petitioner’s claim despite declaration of her status as member of founder family by the competent civil Court under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’). She has further stated that the very constitution of non-hereditary trust board without appointing the petitioner as its chairman is illegal. Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned standing counsel for Endowments representing respondent No.2 temple pointed out that under explanation II of Section 17 of the Act, ‘member of the family of the founder’ means children, grand children and so in agnatic line of succession for the time being in force and declared or recognised as such by the relevant appointing authority. On this premise, he submitted that the petitioner, who is the daughter of the hereditary trustee, should not have been declared as member of the founder family. As regards the prayer for setting aside the constitution of trust board, in my opinion, this relief cannot be granted at this length of time as the trust board was constituted as far back as 25.08.2009 when the petitioner’s appeal was pending, by which time there was no declaration in her favour that she is the member of the founder family. Even on her own showing the civil Court has declared her as such only on 09.03.2010. The constitution of non-hereditary trust board is only for two years and its term is going to expire in August, 2011. In view of these facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the constitution of trust board. With regard to the claim of the petitioner for being considered for appointment as trustee and chairman of the non-hereditary trust board, as noted above, the learned standing counsel has stated that explanation II of Section 17 of the Act renders the petitioner, who does not fall in agnatic line, ineligible for being appointed as such. In my opinion, it is premature for respondent No.2 to raise this objection because respondent No.1, being the competent authority, shall consider the petitioner’s claim in the light of the declaration given by the civil Court and the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, it is not appropriate for this Court to adjudicate on this issue at this stage. Accordingly, respondent No.1 is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation and take appropriate decision on her claim for being appointed as trustee in her capacity as member of the founder family while constituting the next trust board and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.9261 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22nd March, 2011 GHN