THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 4082 of 2009 Dated: 19.07.2010 Between: Mr. A.Uday Bhaskar, Vijayawada and 10 others. … Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and 8 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 4082 of 2009 O R D E R : The petitioners herein claim to be the grand children of one China Basavaiah. It is stated that one Sri Seetharama Avadootha, the natural brother of China Basavaiah was the founder of the 4th respondent-trust. It is further stated that after the death of the founder Sri Seetharama Avadootha, the 4th respondent- trust was managed by Sri China Basavaiah. Thereafter, one of the sons of China Basavaiah (paternal uncle of the petitioners herein) by name Purnachandra Rao was appointed as founder family member of the trust. The said appointment was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad by the father of the petitioners 1 to 6 herein. During the pendency of the said proceedings, Purnachandra Rao as well as the father of the petitioners 1 to 6 died. While so, after the enactment of A.P.Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’), under Sections 16 of the said Act, while abolishing the hereditary trusteeship, a provision is made for appointment of the founder family members as a member of the Board of Trustees and also as Chairman of the Board. So far as the 4th respondent-trust is concerned, the petitioners herein as well as the respondents 5 to 9 who are also the grand sons of China Basavaiah claim to be the members of the founder family. Alleging that while ignoring the claim of the petitioners herein the respondents 1 to 4 have been considering the applications of the respondents 6 to 9 for appointment as members of the Board of Trustees representing the founder family, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the said action of the respondents 1 to 4 without having any regard to any activities of the 4th respondent-trust and the qualifications of respondents 6 to 9 is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Sri K.Ananda Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 9. As could be seen from the material available on record, it is clear that there is a dispute as to the question whether the petitioners or the respondents 5 to 9 are entitled to be recognized as members of the founder family of the 4th respondent-trust. By virtue of Section 87 (1) (h) of the Act, such a dispute has to be decided by Endowments Tribunal constituted under the Act as amended by Act 33/2007 with effect from 03.01.2008. Learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 9 has brought to my notice that O.A.No.79 of 2008 was already preferred by the petitioners 6 to 9 herein before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments for adjudication of the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents 5 to 9 and after constitution of the Endowments Tribunal, the same has been transferred to the Tribunal and the same is pending before the Tribunal as on today. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to the rival claims made by the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Endowments Tribunal to dispose of O.A.No.79 of 2008 pending on its file following due process of law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. L ​ ____________ G.ROHINI,J Date: 19.07.2010 KLP