@#@#@#@#@#@#@ HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO:24046 of 2000 DATED: 13-02-2008 Between: Sri Durgamamba Alaya Abhivruddi Kamiti, Golla Kancharapalem (Regd.1405/93), rep.by its Chairman Sri Palla Simhadri Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Commissioner of Endowments, Government of A.P., Hyderabad and 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS @#@#@#@#@#@#@ ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the temple committee seeking to declare the action of the first respondent in appointing the third respondent as Incharge Executive Officer of the temple through the proceedings dated 03-11-2000 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The petitioner committee contended that a committee was formed to develop the temple by raising funds among themselves and at the instance of some disgruntled persons who are enmical to the petitioner committee an application was made to the Commissioner of Endowments about some allegations against the committee members. The Commissioner appointed the third respondent as Executive Officer Incharge of the said institution, therefore, the petitioner requested to quash the proceedings on the ground that the temple cannot be considered as the temple coming within the purview of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (For brevity ‘the Act’). Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the temple was registered under Section 6 (c) of the Endowments Act in the year 1991 and it will be under the control of the Endowments Act which has more than Rs.50,000/- towards income. In the normal course of administration, the Commissioner appointed the third respondent as Incharge Executive Officer and as per the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in G.Ramana Murthy v. Govt. of A.P. rep.by its Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Dept. Hyderabad and others[1], the said appointment cannot be questioned, therefore, they requested to dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits. In the said decision it was contended that the Executive Officer cannot be appointed for a temple without there being any necessity in public interest and without material. This Court examined the legal question and held as follows: “In the instant case, in fact, there were materials before the Commissioner to consider the appointment of Executive Officer, if necessary. Over a period of years, the appellant was not exercising any diligence to collect the dues, both in cash and kind, of the institution and was not even submitting the accounts. Whether such materials were adequate to appoint an Executive Officer or not is not within the domain of the Court to examine as it is well known that the adequacy or inadequacy of the material to take an executive decision is not for the Courts to scrutinize. If at all there is existence of some materials on the basis of which a reasonable man could be persuaded to take a decision, the quantum of the material would not be for the Court to scrutinize and analyse.” This decision was followed in Executive Officer, Group Temples, Dhoolipudi and another v. Dasaratha Rama Rao and others[2]. In the light of the above legal position and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ 13th February, 2008 SKM [1] 1997 (4) ALT 769 (D.B.) [2] 1999 (3) ALT 466 (D.B.)