THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7531 of 2011 Date:23.03.2011 Between: Dr.Arvind Kumar Ganeriwal ..... Petitioner AND The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Tilak Road, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Yadgir Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Endowments Counsel for Respondent No.4: Sri Ch.Satish Kumar The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare continuation of respondent Nos.5 to 8 as non-hereditary trustees of Board of Trustees of Sri Sitharam Maharaj Sansthan, Sitarambagh, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Religious Institution’) as illegal and contrary to Sections 17 and 18 of the A.P.Charitble and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Administration of Oath of Office and Secrecy Rules, 1987 (for short ‘the Rules’). I have heard Sri P.Yadgir Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner is the founder family member in respect of the Religious Institution and a non-hereditary Trust Board was constituted by order, dated 17.09.2010, of respondent No.1, with the petitioner as Chairman and respondent Nos.5 to 8 as its members. The oath of office and secrecy was administered on the trustees on 27.09.2010. The petitioner pleaded that he has made an application under Section 28 r/w Section 19(2) of the Act and Rule 4 of the Rules before respondent No.1 on 15.02.2011 to declare the trusteeship of respondent Nos.5 to 8 as illegal, as they have ceased to hold office and to remove or dismiss them, and suspend their trusteeship immediately pending the main application. While the said application along with the interim payer was pending with respondent No.1, respondent No.4 addressed letter, dated 10.03.2011, to the petitioner, wherein he has informed that the trustees have requested to convene the meeting of Board of Trustees to discuss the arrangements to be made for the ensuing Sri Rama Navami festival. Aggrieved by non-disposal of his application by respondent No.1 and the communication issued by respondent No.4, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the relief claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted by this Court at this stage because the petitioner’s application before respondent No.1 is pending adjudication. Until the allegations made by the petitioner stand proved, respondent Nos.5 to 8, who were duly appointed as trustees and who have been functioning as such after the oath having been administered on them, cannot be restrained from functioning as trustees. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner made a strong bid to convince this Court to restrain respondent Nos.5 to 8 from interfering with the arrangements relating to Sri Rama Navami festival, I am not inclined to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the above-mentioned reason. On the above premises, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to pass an appropriate order on the petitioner’s application, after hearing the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 to 8, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.9368 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd March, 2011 VGB