IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24176 of 2001 Between: Sri Varadaraja Swamy Temple Peddapulivarru rep.by its Founder Trustee Sri M.V.S.M.Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of A.P., rep.by its Jt.Secretary to Govt. Revenue (Endts)-IV Dept., Sect., Bldngs., Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of Endowments Tilak Road, Hyderabad 3 The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments (Services) Tilak Road, Hyderabad 4 The Asst. Commissioner of Endowments Guntur ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.JAGAN MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled to set aside memo dated 01- 11-2000 issued by respondent No.1 as the same is in violation of principles of natural justice and unconstitutional. Sri M.S.V.M.Rao is recognized as the founder trustee in respect of as many as 11 temples, which included 8 temples grouped together as Rachoor Group Temples, Guntur District by G.O.Rt.No.1779 Revenue (E-I) Department dated 15-11-1994 and Grade-I Executive Oﬃcer was appointed for the management of the said group temples. As far as the other three temples, namely; Sri Varadaraja Swamy Temple, Pedapulivarru, Sri Narendra Swamy Temple, Pedapulivarru and Sri Gokarneswara Swamy Temple, Dhulipudi, are concerned, they were under the management of the Executive Oﬃcers of Pedapulivarru and Dhulipudi Group Temples. On the application ﬁled by the petitioner-founder trustee to include the said three temples in the Rachoor Group Temples, respondent No.2 issued proceedings RC No.G2/21088/2000 dated 31-05-2000 by deleting the said three temples from the management of the Executive Oﬃcers of Pedapulivarru and Dhulipudi Group Temples and directed handover of complete charge of the said three temples to the Executive Oﬃcer, Rachoor Group Temples. He also directed the Executive Oﬃcer, Rachoor Group Temples to take complete charge of the said three temples and report compliance. However, within a few months therefrom, respondent No.2 addressed letter dated 11-08-2000 to respondent No.1, wherein he narrated the above mentioned facts and requested it to include the said three temples in Rachoor Group Temples under single Executive Oﬃcer. This request was rejected by impugned memo issued on 01-11-2000 by respondent No.1. At the hearing, Sri D.Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that under Section 145 read with Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”), respondent No.2 is the competent authority to issue appropriate orders for grouping the temples and appointing an Executive Oﬃcer or person-in-management to administer the temples; that respondent No.2 had already exercised that power by his proceedings dated 31-05-2000 and that no appeal as provided under Section 145(4) of the Act was ﬁled by any aggrieved person against the said order and therefore, there was no need for respondent No.2 to seek approval or ratiﬁcation of the action taken by him on 31-05- 2000. Alternatively, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned memo does not contain any reasons and, therefore, in the absence of any reason, whatsoever, given by respondent No.1 to reject the request made by respondent No.2, the same cannot be sustained. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments invited my attention to Section 93 of the Act and stated that respondent No.1 has power to pass appropriate orders in exercise of its revisional power and that therefore, the impugned memo is valid. In the view I am taking on the ﬁrst contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I need not render any finding on his alternative contention. Under sub-section (1) of Section 145 of the Act, where the Commissioner has reason to believe that any religious institution is not capable of maintaining out of its funds, he may, in the interest of proper management of administration and subject to such restrictions and conditions as he may deem ﬁt, direct the amalgamation or as the case may be, the adoption of such religious institution by any other religious institution having similar objects and capable of managing such institution and thereupon the trustee of the institution to which it is amalgamated or by which it is adopted shall maintain and administer such institution. Under sub-section (2), on such amalgamation or adoption, the institutions shall be deemed to comprise a single institution and administered as if they were a single institution published under Section 6. Under sub-section (4), an appeal shall lie to the Government against the orders passed by the Commissioner under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3), under which the Commissioner may in the interest of proper management of administration, revoke the earlier orders passed under sub- section (1). Section 8 of the Act, envisages powers and functions of Commissioner and Additional Commissioner, which, inter alia, include the administration of all Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and endowments to be under his general superintendence and control and which power shall also include the power to pass any order which may be deemed necessary to ensure that such institutions and endowments are properly administered and their income is duly appropriated for the purpose for which they were found or exist. The above mentioned statutory provisions vest ample power in respondent No.2 to group two or more temples and also ensure that they are administered properly. This power of respondent No.2 being very wide which should also take in appointing a single Executive Oﬃcer for the temples merged under one group, respondent No.2 had power to pass order dated 31-05-2000, grouping the above mentioned three temples in Rachoor Group Temples by taking them out of Pedapulivarru and Dhulipudi Group Temples and entrusting administration of the said temples to the Executive Oﬃcer of Rachoor Group Temples. There was, therefore, absolutely no necessity for respondent No.2 to seek conﬁrmation or ratiﬁcation of his action. As regards Section 93 of the Act, on which reliance is placed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the said provision vested power of revision in respondent No.1, which can be exercised either suo motu or on an application. In my view, the said provision has no application at all to the facts of this case, where no one invoked the revisional jurisdiction of respondent No.1 against order dated 31-05-2000 passed by respondent No.2. At any rate, the letter addressed by respondent No.2 cannot be treated as an application to invoke the revisional power of respondent No.1. On the premises as above, the impugned memo is set aside and so long as proceedings dated 31-05-2000 issued by respondent No.2 are not varied by him, the said three temples shall continue under the management of the Executive Oﬃcer of Rachoor Group Temples. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 19th September, 2008 vrn