IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:19412 of 2001 Between: Sankuri Yadaiah, S/o.Late Lingaiah, R/o.1-10-6, Main Road, Kushaiguda, R.R.Distrist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Joint Commissioner, MZ.111, Endowments Department, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad. 2 The Dy.Commissioner, Endowments Department, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad. 3 The Asst. Commissioner, Endowments Department, R.R. and Hyderabad District. Boggulakunta, Hyderabad. 4 The Principle Secretary to Government, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 5 Sri. s.Ramadass, s/o.Late Balaiah, R/o.65, Sardar Patel Road, Secunderabad-500 003. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:NONE APPEARED Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4:AGP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 03.03.1999 and order, dated 13.12.1999 issued in Proceedings No.C/469/99 and Revision Petition No.62 of 1999 by respondent Nos.3 and 1 respectively. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner and respondent No.5. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for respondent Nos.1 to 4. The dispute pertains to recognition of a member from the founder family in respect of Sri Padmavathi Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Kushaiguda (for short ‘the temple’). On an application ﬁled by respondent No.5 under Section 87(h) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’), prior to it’s amendment, respondent No.3 issued proceedings on 03.03.1999 holding that late Sankuri Balaiah, the father of the applicant (respondent No.5), founded the temple and, therefore, the applicant was recognized as the member of the founder family. He arrived at the said ﬁnding on the basis of the purported entry in column No.4 of the register maintained under Section 43 of the Act, which showed the name of late Sri Sankuri Balaiah, the father of the applicant, as the founder of the temple. Feeling aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner herein ﬁled Revision Petition No.62 of 1999 before respondent No.1, who in his order, dated 13.12.1999, while categorically holding that in the said column, the names of Sri Sankuri Balaiah, the father of respondent No.5, and Sri Sankuri Yadaiah, the petitioner herein, were shown as founders of the temple; that respondent No.5 being the son of late Sankuri Balaiah had every right to be recognized as a member of the founder family and that the rights of the petitioner are no way aﬀected, dismissed the revision petition with the observation that the petitioner is at liberty to seek rotation to act as a member of the founder family and head the Non-Hereditary Trust Board. Questioning the said order, the petitioner ﬁled the present writ petition. In his aﬃdavit, the petitioner while claiming that he is in the exclusive management of the temple, averred that he ﬁled an application before respondent No.3 for declaring him as a member of the founder family and by his order passed in File No.2433/1997, dated 17.06.1998, respondent No.3 recognized the petitioner as the founder trustee of the temple. From the facts noted above, it is quite evident that the petitioner and the father of respondent No.5 were the founders of the temple and both their names were mentioned as founders in column No.4 of the register maintained by the oﬃce of respondent No.3. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.3 issued order on 17.06.1998 recognizing the petitioner as a member of the founder family. In his proceedings, dated 03.03.1999, respondent No.3 while recognizing respondent No.5 as a member, did not hold that the petitioner was not a member of the founder family. In his order, dated 13.12.1999, respondent No.1 has taken note of the fact that the names of the petitioner and the father of respondent No.5 were mentioned as the founders. He also observed that the petitioner can apply for his appointment as Chairman of the Non-Hereditary Trust Board by rotation. It would have been more appropriate if respondent Nos.1 and 3 have referred to order, dated 17.06.1998, by which, the petitioner was recognized as the member of the founder family and jointly declared the petitioner and respondent No.5 as members of the founder family. Be that as it may, the impugned orders in the writ petition would not in any manner aﬀect the right of the petitioner as the member of the founder family, which was already recognized by the department as mentioned supra. In this view of the matter, the interests of the petitioner not having been in any manner aﬀected by the impugned orders passed in favour of respondent No.5, no relief need be granted in favour of the petitioner except to hold that the petitioner continues to be one of the members of the founder family of the temple and his rights under Section 17 of the Act are preserved. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, interim order, dated 19.09.2001 is vacated and WPMP.No.24467 of 2001 is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th SEPTEMBER, 2008. kvni