THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5776 of 2011 Date:08.03.2011 Between: Siddilinga Swamy Mutt ..... Petitioner AND A.P.Dharmika Parishad, rep.by its Member Secretary, Dharmika Bhavan, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C.Yadagiri Counsel for Respondent No.2: AGP for Endowments The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings No.DP1/37562/2010-item 4, dated 19.08.2010, of respondent No.1, whereby it has appointed respondent No.5 as Mathadhipathi (Sri Siddilinga Swamy V) of Sri Siddilinga Swamy Mutt. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner claims to be the Mathadhipathi (Sri Siddilinga Swamy IV) of Sri Siddilinga Swamy Mutt, Neradgum Village, Maganoor Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. According to him, he has succeeded Sri Siddilinga Swamy III as Sri Siddilinga Swamy IV, as far back as the year 1964 and that one Siva Puthra Dev was acting as manager to look after the property attached to the mutt. It is his further case that Siva Puthra Dev died on 14.04.2009 and respondent No.1 wrongly assuming that the deceased person was Sri Siddilinga Swamy IV and with his death a vacancy arose in the office of Mathadhipathi, passed the impugned order appointing respondent No.5 as Mathadhipathi (Sri Siddilinga Swamy V). The averments contained in the affidavit further show that the proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were pending, in view of the dispute between Siva Puthra Dev and the petitioner and that O.S.No.46 of 2009 in the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet for perpetual injunction restraining respondent No.5 from claiming as Sri Siddilinga Swamy V is also pending. Under Section 53 of the A.P.Chartible and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’), where a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the Mathadhipathi by reason of death or resignation of the Mathadhipathi or on account of his removal under Section 51 or otherwise, the person next entitled to succeed according to the rule of succession laid down by the founder, or where no such rule is laid down, according to the usage or custom or where no such usage or custom exists, according to the law of succession, for the time being in force, shall with the permission of the Dharmika Parishad succeed to the office of the Mathadhipathi. On the proposals submitted by respondent No.2, respondent No.1, who is competent to appoint Mathadhipathi under the above- mentioned provision, appointed respondent No.5 as Mathadhipathi. The facts pleaded by the petitioner clearly show that there is a serious dispute between him and respondent No.5 to the Office of the Mathadhipathi and a suit filed by him is pending. Under Section 87(e) of the Act, the Endowments Tribunal is competent to decide the dispute as to whether any person is entitled by custom or otherwise to any honor, emoluments or perquisites in any charitable or religious institution or endowment and what the established usage of such institution or endowment is in regard to any other matter. Thus, the petitioner is left with effective alternative remedy under the above-mentioned provision. Even on his own showing, he has already approached the civil Court for the relief of permanent injunction against respondent No.5. In the face of these admitted facts, it is not appropriate for this Court to entertain this writ petition and adjudicate upon the disputed question as to the person, who is entitled to succeed to the office of Mathadhipathi. The writ petition is therefore dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedies referred to above. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.7183 and 7184 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th March, 2011 VGB