THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.15273 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is a member of founder’s family of Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. It is stated that in the same complex, there is a Temple of Sri Anjaneya Swamy, and since there is only one Archaka, there is none to attend to the devotes at Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple. The petitioner submits that though there is adequate income for the Temple, and though permission was accorded by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, the Manager of the Temple, the 2nd respondent herein, is not taking steps for appointment of the second Archaka. He has also mentioned that the 2nd respondent is not following his directions, even in the matter of preparation of Prasadam. He ultimately seeks a declaration, that the action of the respondents, in not following his directions, is illegal and contrary to Section 29 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’). The 2nd respondent ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit, which is very derogatory in nature. He pleaded that the petitioner has no authority to issue directions, and that there is no necessity for appointment of a second Archaka. He made reference to a writ petition, ﬁled by the existing Archaka, in the matter of appointing a second one. According to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has no authority, or right to interfere with the administration of Temple, when there is no Trust Board. At one stage of the hearing of the matter, this Court took serious exception, to the tone and tenor of the counter-affidavit of the 2nd respondent, and in fact, he was summoned. On realizing his mistakes, he ﬁled an additional counter- aﬃdavit, admitting that he is duty bound to implement all the instructions, that are given by the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Endowments. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was recognized by a Competent Authority, as a member of the founder trustee, of the Temple. The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments accorded permission for appointment of a second Archaka, few years ago. No follow up action was taken, and when the petitioner pressed for the same, the 2nd respondent came forward with very objectionable plea. He virtually treated the petitioner as a non-entity, and that obviously, has reﬂected his action. The various provisions of the Act 30 of 1987 clearly indicate that a member of founder family has not only the right of place in the Trust Board, but is also vested with the power, to issue instructions, even when no Board of Trustees exists. The 2nd respondent did not co-operate with the petitioner, in almost every matter. At least now, he realized his mistake, and stated that he is duty bound, to follow the instructions of the petitioner, in his additional affidavit. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing, that the 2nd respondent shall honour and implement the instructions issued by the petitioner, from time to time. In case, any instructions, issued by the petitioner, are found to be contrary to any provision of law, he shall politely bring the same to the notice of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt:15-09-2008. KO