IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.6466 of 2009 Between: K. Gopala Krishna S/o. Late Rangachari, R/o. Subbampet Village Nandigam Mandal, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Endowments Department, Rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Tilak Nagar, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments Visakhapatnam 4 The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Departments, Srikakulam. 5 Ponduru Narasimha Murthy S/o. Late Appanna Nandigam Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District. 6 Akkurada Lokanadham S/o. Appaiah Nandigam Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District. 7 Palla Lakshmi Devi W/o. Appa Rao R/o. Subbampet Village, Nandigam Mandal, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd and 4th Respondents in not recognizing the petitioner as Founder Family Member of "Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami Temple" situated in Subbampet Village, Nandigam Mandal, Srikakulam District and not appointing him as one of the Trustee of the said temple and also as its Chairman as illegal, arbitrary, erroneous, highhanded violative of the provisions of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987 and also declare the action of the 4th respondent in constituting the Trust Board pending Proceedings before the 3rd respondent Under Sec. 87 and without recognizing the petitioner as Founder Family Member as illegal, arbitrary, erroneous, highhanded and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to recognize the petitioner as Founder Family Member of "Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami Temple" situated in Subbampet Village, Nandigam Mandal, Srikakulam District and appoint the petitioner as Trustee and Chairman of the said temple as per Sec. 15 and 20 of the Act 1987. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y.V.RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.6466 OF 2009 ORDER: According to the petitioner, his brother K. Raghavachari, being the member of the family of the founder of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami Temple situated at Subbampet Village, Nandigam Mandal of Srikakulam District, was acting as hereditary trustee of the said temple till his death on 18.09.1988. After his death, his only son K. Ranganath and the petitioner are the members of the founder’s family to succeed the office of the hereditary trustee of the temple. However, the petitioner gave his consent in writing expressing no objection for appointing Ranganath as hereditary trustee of the temple in place of the deceased Raghavachari. Thereupon, the 4th respondent- Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Department, Srikakulam, issued proceedings dated 02.06.1995, permitting Ranganath to succeed the office of the hereditary trustee of the temple and to manage the affairs of the temple. While so, the petitioner contends that the said Ranganath left for New Zealand as his wife got employment there, and, therefore, he sought for his appointment as hereditary trustee of the temple by recognizing him as member of the founder’s family, for which consent was also given by Ranganath, but without considering his claim, the 3rd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Visakhapatnam, issued a notification on 15.10.2008, inviting applications from the interested persons for trusteeship, for the purpose of constituting trust board to the temple. The petitioner further contends that, pursuant to the said notification, the respondents 5 to 7 were appointed as trustees. The petitioner complains that, when his claim for appointment as hereditary trustee is pending before the authorities, the trust board should not have been constituted or else he should have been appointed as one of the trustees. In this regard, a petition under Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act is also stated to have been field by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent on 22.12.2008, along with a miscellaneous petition, seeking stay of appointment of board of trustees, but the petitioner alleges that neither stay is granted nor the main petition is taken up for consideration till date. Hence, this writ petition. Heard both sides. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the petition dated 22.12.2008 filed by the petitioner, under Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, for recognizing him as the member of the founder’s family, is pending before the 3rd respondent, without expressing any opinion on merits, I deem it appropriate to direct the 3rd respondent to consider the said petition and pass appropriate orders as per law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 26th March, 2009. IBL