HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO. 11436 OF 2006 DATED: 12.6.2006 Between: Teyagura Poli Reddy … Petitioner and The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.11436 OF 2006 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner claims to be a member of the family of the founder’s of Sri Polireddy Kunta, Polireddy Palem village, Chilakaluripet Mandal, a charitable institution governed by the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’). It is not pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner had applied for and has been recognized as a member of the founder’s family. He was however continuing de facto in the management of the charitable institution. Perhaps this circumstance is the product of the petitioner’s assumption that as a member of the founder’s family, he could manage the affairs of a charitable institution even without recognition as such and appointment as a trustee by the competent authority by following the substantive and procedural requirements of the Act superadded by the sharing of this misconception by the officials of the Endowments Department. By the impugned proceedings dated 22.12.2005, the 1st respondent appointed the 2nd respondent-manager of the Chilakaluripet Group of temples, as the Single Trustee of the institution. The petitioner contends that this order of the 1st respondent is illegal as a member of the founder’s family could not have been ignored while appointing an outsider as a Single Trustee. In the circumstances of this case as adverted to above, this contention is fallacious. The petitioner’s claim to being a member of the founder’s family has not yet been determined by the competent authority as required under the provisions of the Act. Till such recognition and declaration, the petitioner cannot claim any preferential right to be appointed as a trustee. The petitioner’s de facto management of the properties of the charitable institution is also not in accordance with law. While the petitioner is at liberty to make an application for recognition as a member of the founder’s family and for the benefits consequent on such recognition, no case is made out for interdiction of the impugned order. The impugned order is impeccable and suffers from no illegality. The writ petition is without merits and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ------------------------------ GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 12.6.2006 cvm