THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 23075 of 2007 Oral order: The petitioners, who are six in number, have called in question the order dated 31.08.2006, passed by respondent No.1, namely the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, allowing the application in I.A. No. 80 of 2004 in O.A. No. 21 of 2004, filed by respondent No.3, namely Sanathnagar Youth Welfare Association, praying to them as party respondent in the O.A. so as to contest the case and defend the interest of Sri Hanuman Temple, Sanathnagar. The petitioners clam that they are Founder Trustees of Sri Hanuman Temple, Sanathnagar, and also members of its Managing Committee. They state that they developed the temple and also constructed several temples of Lord Shiva, Goddess Durga Matha, Goddess Santoshi Matha, Lord Vigneswara, Sri Sai Baba, Lord Ayyappa, Lord Sri Venkiateswara and Goddess Saraswathi Devi. That Sri Hanuman Temple (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Temple’), is a private temple, and that while, they are managing the temple, the petitioners state that respondent No.2, without issuing any notice and without following the procedure contemplated under Section 43 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Endowments Act’), have brought the temple under the control under Section 6-C of the Endowments Act. Hence, questioning the action of respondent No.2 in classifying the temple as Section 6-C temple, the petitioners filed O.A. No. 21 of 2004 before respondent No.1. While the O.A. is pending adjudication before respondent No.1, the petitioners state that respondent No.3, who has nothing to do with the affairs of the temple, filed the present application in I.A. No. 80 of 2004, praying to implead them as party- respondent in the O.A., inter alia contending that the temple is not a private temple of the petitioners, but is a public temple, being run with the donations collected and funds generated through sale of tickets to the general public for the performance of poojas etc. Though the petitioners contended that respondent No.3 has no locus standi to get themselves impleaded as party respondent in the O.A., but respondent No.1 considering the fact that respondent No.3 is a registered association, and is espousing the cause of the temple, by reason of the impugned order, allowed the application filed by respondent No.3 to implead them as party-respondent in the O.A. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that every order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the Endowments Act, requires ratification of the Commissioner of Endowments, as provided under Sections 87(3) and (5) of the Endowments Act, and inasmuch as the impugned order passed by respondent No.2, namely the Deputy Commissioner, is not ratified by the Commissioner of Endowments, as required under Section 87(3) and (5) of the Endowments Act, the same cannot be given effect to. In support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment dated 24.01.2006 of this Court in W.P. No. 19145 of 2005 a n d Alaparthi Venkata Chalapathi Rao v. Commissoner of Endowments[1]. Hence, he prayed that the impugned order be set aside. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 01.11.2007, granted interim stay of the impugned order. Though respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent No.3 filed petitions, supported by the counter- affidavits, praying to vacate the interim order. But during the course of hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, did not dispute the legal position that every order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, has to be ratified by the Commissioner, as required under Section 87(3) and (5) of the Endowments Act, and that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1, has not been ratified by the Commissioner of Endowments. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent No.3. Since every order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, requires ratification by the Commissioner of Endowments under Section 87(3) and (5) of the Endowments Act, and having regard to the fact that the present impugned order, passed by respondent No.1, namely the Deputy Commissioner, did not receive the ratification of the Commissioner of Endowments, as required under Section 87(3) and (5) of the Endowments Act, and having regard to the settled law, the same is not enforceable. Hence, the impugned order, passed by respondent No.1, is liable to be set aside, and the same is accordingly set aside. At this stage, it was brought to the notice of the Court by the counsel that Endowments Tribunal has been constituted under Section 162 of the Endowments Act, and that the powers hitherto being exercised by the Deputy Commissioner, under Section 87(1) of the Endowments Act, are now being exercised by the Endowments Tribunal, and as such, if respondent No.3 wants to get themselves impleaded in the O.A., they have to file fresh application before the Endowments Tribunal and seek appropriate relief. Since after constitution of the Endowments Tribunal, the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to exercise the power vested under Section 87(1) of the Endowments Act, is ousted and is now vested in the Endowments Tribunal, respondent No.3, is at liberty to approach the Endowments Tribunal, seeking their impleadment as party-respondent in the O.A., and if respondent No.3 approaches with appropriate application, the Endowments Tribunal, shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, with the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 31st August, 2010 KVNI/KSR [1] 2006 (6) ALT 84