THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 10481 OF 2007 Dated: 15-09-2011 Between: Velagaleti Visweswara Prasad ... PETITIONERS AND The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada and two others ... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 10481 OF 2007 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of mandamus to declare proceedings Rc.No.B4/2702/2007, dated 18-04- 2007 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada, the 1st respondent herein appointing the 3rd respondent herein as a fit person to Sri Parivara Sahita Sri Annapurna Kasi Visweswara Swamy Temple, Velagaleru Village, G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna Ditrict as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner claims to be the founder family member of the temple in question. It is stated that on a complaint filed by one B.V. Purnachandra Rao on 09-01-2007 alleging certain irregularities stated to have been committed by the petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada, the 2nd respondent herein was directed to enquire into the same and based on the report submitted by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order appointing the 3rd respondent as the fit person to the temple and he was asked to take charge from the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that impugned order is passed without giving him any opportunity, invoking Section 28 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) based on the ex parte enquiry conducted by the 2nd respondent. It is his further case that the impugned order is passed without framing any charge against him. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. This Court while issuing notice before admission on 16-05-2007, granted interim suspension for a period of four weeks and subsequently by order dated 12-06-2007, the same was ordered to be continued until further orders. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and perused the material available on record. Though the writ petition is of the year 2007, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. A perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that except referring to the complaint filed by a private individual by name B.V. Purnachandra Rao, no enquiry appears to have been conducted by issuing notice to the petitioner and by framing charges before the impugned order is passed. Section 28(3) of the Act empowers the 1st respondent to appoint a fit person pending enquiry into any charge framed against a trustee, but in the case on hand no charge is framed against the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that without initiating any enquiry and without framing any charge, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order. The respondents have not filed counter affidavit rebutting the same. For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 18-04-2007 passed by the 1st respondent in proceedings Rc.No. B4/2702/2007 is hereby quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. However, this order does not preclude the respondents to take appropriate steps for conducting enquiry against the petitioner. R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 15-09-2011 ks