THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10756 of 2009 AND WRIT PETITION No.19644 of 2009 WRIT PETITION No.10756 of 2009: Date: 23.03.2010 Between: Sri Madhavaswami Temple, rep., by its Founder’s Family Member, Sri K. Navarang Kishan. … Petitioner and The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Govt. of A.P. Boggulakunta, Hyderabad and another. …. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10756 of 2009 AND WRIT PETITION No.19644 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Appointment of a Manager to Sri Madhava Swamy Temple at Machilipatnam is under challenge in this writ petition filed by the founder family member of the said temple. The second respondent, in his proceedings dated 19.05.2009, noted the contents of the report furnished by the Assistant Commissioner (Endowments) that the temple was being mismanaged by the power of attorney holder of the founder family member; the founder family member/G.P.A. were not conducting public auctions of the leasehold rights as per rules; they were not submitted proposals under Section 43 of the Act for registration of the institution etc. By the proceedings dated 19.05.2009, the Commissioner, in exercise of his powers under the first proviso to Section 29 of Act 30 of 1987, authorized the Manager of Sri Suvarchala Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Parasupeta, Machilipatnam to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Executive Officer of Sri Madhava Swamy Temple. Certain other directions issued to the Manager are not germane to the case on hand. This order dated 19.05.2009 was subjected to challenge in W.P. No.10756 of 2009 and this Court, by order in W.P.M.P. No.13817 of 2009 in W.P. No.10756 of 2009, directed that status quo be maintained with regards taking of charge. Thereafter the 3rd respondent herein passed the proceedings dated 16.07.2009 appointing Sri Jogi Rambabu to take complete charge of Sri Madhava Swamy Temple from Sri D. Raghunath and relieve him from the said temples. The proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 16.07.2009 is under challenge in W.P. No.19644 of 2009. Sri M.S. Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that appointment of the Manager to the temple was without notice to the founder family member and was, therefore, liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel would rely on a Division bench judgment of this Court, in Executive Officer, Toorangi Group Temples v. Gopal Inani[1], in this regard. Section 27 (2)(b) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 conferred powers on the Commissioner to appoint an Executive Officer. For every Charitable or Religious Institutions or Endowments having annual income of less than one crore, Section 29 of Act 30 of 1987 confers power on the Commissioner to appoint an Executive Officer. However for temples classified under Section 6(c), Section 29 does not require an Executive Officer to be appointed. Under the proviso to Section 29 where there is no Executive officer, in respect of a charitable or religious institution, the trustee, duly authorized by the Commissioner in this behalf, is empowered to exercise powers, perform the functions and discharge the duties of an Executive Officer. In Gopal Inani1, the Division bench of this Court held that principles of natural justice could only be excluded either by express provision of the statute or necessary implication; all provisions of the statute under which actions are directed to be taken would require compliance of the rules of natural justice which are to be regarded as an in-built provision in the statute itself and it is for this reason that an order occasioning appointment of an executive officer, for alleged mismanagement of the temple, could only have been passed after giving an opportunity of being heard to the management before any adverse action was taken against them. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the founder family member has not been put on notice either with regards the allegations of mismanagement or with regards appointment of the Manager (Executive Officer). The impugned orders, in both these writ petitions, are accordingly quashed for violation of principles of natural justice. Needless to state that this order shall not preclude the competent authority concerned from taking action afresh, in accordance with law, for appointment of an executive officer/manager after putting the founder family member of the temple on notice and after giving him an opportunity of being heard. The writ petitions are allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. Date: 23.03.2010 ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR [1] 1996(1) ALD 1187 (D.B.)