HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WV.MP.No.1069 of 2010 in WRIT APPEAL No.47 OF 2009 Between: Banda Satyanarayana …. Appellant and Banda Raghavendra Rao and others …. Respondents This court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WV.MP.No.1069 of 2010 in WRIT APPEAL No.47 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This writ appeal is directed against the orders of the learned single Judge in allowing the writ petition No.18248 of 2008 filed by the 1st respondent, setting aside the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada made in O.A.No.17 of 2006, dated 17.05.2008. Parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the writ petition. Writ petitioner filed petition under Section 87(1)(h) of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity, “Act 30/87”) to declare him as a member of the founders’ family before the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments to declare him as a founder family member and the same was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments by order, dated 15.02.2006, upholding the claim of the 3rd respondent/appellant herein to declare him as a founder family member. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3532 of 2006. This Court by order, dated 11.09.2007, allowed the writ petition holding that the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 87(1)(h) of the Act 30/87 and the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments only will have jurisdiction to consider the rival claims of the parties to declare them as founder family member and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, in D.Dis.No. A5/308/2006, Admn., dated 15.02.2006, with a direction to transmit the records relating to the 4th respondent/appellant herein to consider the circumstances of both the parties and decide the matter afresh. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the Deputy Commissioner took up the matter and after issuing necessary notice calling for the remarks from the Assistant Commissioner passed the impugned order holding that the writ petitioner is not entitled to be declared as founder family member to Sri Kanaka Lingeswara Swamyvari Temple, Atapaka, Kaikaluru Mandal, Krishna District. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18248 of 2008 contending that the earlier orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments is without jurisdiction and the Deputy Commissioner simply acting upon the findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner, as submitted by him in his remarks, passed the impugned order without independently considering the claim of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner has been contested. In view of the alternative remedy of appeal available to the writ petitioner, the writ petition cannot be entertained and supported the order of the Deputy Commissioner contending that he has not only taken the remarks submitted by the Assistant Commissioner along with his findings in the earlier proceedings, but the other materials has also been considered, except not taking into consideration of the property register. The writ petitioner cannot find fault with the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Learned single Judge of this Court by order, dated 19.11.2008, after considering the rival claims, was of the view that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner does not disclose consideration of the claims of the parties independently and perusal of the property register to have come to an independent conclusion, de hors the earlier order of the Assistant Commissioner or the enquiry held by him that it was not the petitioner but the 3rd respondent/appellant herein was entitled to be appointed as a member of the Trust Board, both on the ground that he had relied on an order of the Assistant Commissioner, which this Court held to be without jurisdiction and he failed to consider the matter afresh, despite the directions issued by this Court. It was further held that the alternative remedy of appeal is not a bar to entertain the writ petition, since the Mandamus issued by this court earlier has not been hither to in its true spirit. Therefore, the learned single Judge set aside the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Sri V.V.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the impugned order in O.A.No.17 of 2006, the Deputy Commissioner has not only considered the earlier findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner but also the evidence adduced by the parties and where the petitioner also failed to prove the requirement which is necessary under Section 17 of the Act 30/87 to declare him as a member of the founder family. Therefore, the learned single Judge was not justified in observing that the Deputy Commissioner failed to consider the evidence adduced by the parties in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim. Indisputably, the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner was held to be without jurisdiction and the said order has been set aside by allowing W.P.No.3532 of 2006 where the Assistant Commissioner negatived the claim of the writ petitioner while upholding the claim of the 3rd respondent/writ appellant to declare him as a founder family member. Once the order of the Assistant Commissioner was held to be without jurisdiction, any finding recorded by him cannot be a basis to declare the 3rd respondent as a founder family member. The 3rd respondent who examined himself as R.W.1 in the cross-examination admitted that the genealogical tree i.e., Ex.A2 filed by the petitioner is correct and that the petitioner acted as a member of the trust board of the subject temple for two terms. This vital fact has not been taken into consideration by the Deputy Commissioner, but stated that he never acted as a member of the trust board for negativing his claim. He is influenced by the findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner while conducting the enquiry by giving an opportunity to the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent. Once this Court issued a Mandamus to the Deputy Commissioner to conduct an enquiry de novo, it is his duty to reconsider the whole issue afresh, uninfluenced by any of the findings or observations made earlier by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments. In view of the same, the learned single Judge was right in setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and remitting the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to decide the same afresh. It is now represented that in view of the constitution of the Endowments Tribunal, the Tribunals have to decide the claims of the rival parties independently uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court. Until the Tribunal decides the O.A., status quo prevailing as on today as to who can manage the temple independently, shall be maintained. The WV.MP.No.1069 of 2010 is, accordingly, disposed of. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J _______________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J 2nd November 2010 LMV