THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR W.A.No.1577 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per VVA,J) This appeal is preferred by the petitioner, who is a hereditary trustee and who had approached this Court by WP No.16699 of 2002, questioning the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad bearing RC No.A2/4704/2002, dated 26.8.2002. Under the aforesaid order impugned in the writ petition, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments had placed the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry into charges on the ground that he had allegedly taken up un-authorized constructions and there were other irregularities. The writ petition was filed primarily on the ground that the petitioner being a hereditary trustee, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments is not the appointing authority and consequently, has no power to place the petitioner under suspension. It was urged by the petitioner that the permission to renovate was granted to him by the Commissioner and accordingly, the renovation work was taken up, but, subsequently, the said permission was withdrawn. To the extent of withdrawal of the said permission by the Commissioner in his proceedings dated 10.8.2002 in RC.No.D2/16758/02-2, the petitioner has already filed another WP No.15255 of 2002 and by order of this Court in WPMP No.19105 of 2002, dated 27.8.2002, the said order of Commissioner was suspended. The said writ petition is said to be still pending. Learned counsel for the appellant would urge that the renovation work taken up by the appellant cannot be said to be un-authorized. Leaned Single Judge while hearing the writ petition held that the appointing authority has power to suspend a trustee and further, on some allegations levelled against the petitioner, he felt it not appropriate to interfere with the impugned order of suspension pending enquiry, but, however directed the respondents to complete the enquiry within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal is preferred. We have heard Sri P.Yadigiri Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments. Since the main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant being the aspect of jurisdiction, we have examined the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (For short ‘the Act’), particularly Section 26 of the Act and we have also seen judgment of the Division Bench relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in D.V.Raghavacharyulu vs. Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Dept., Guntur and others[1]. So far as the facts of the case on merits are concerned, it is true that the order of the Commissioner revoking the permission for renovation was followed by an order of suspension thereof and the writ petition filed challenging the revocation is still pending. The correctness or otherwise of that aspect, therefore, does not fall for consideration in this appeal. The Division Bench in D.V.Raghavacharyulu’s case, referred to above, has proceeded to hold that since the hereditary trustee is not appointed by the Deputy Commissioner & he has no power to suspend a hereditary trustee and the petitioner being the hereditary trustee in view of the aforesaid decision, could not have been placed under suspension. Even otherwise, we find that no enquiry has been conducted or completed as contemplated in the order of suspension dated 26.8.200. Further, this Court by the impugned order, dated 03.09.2002, directed the respondents to complete the enquiry within three months, but till date, the enquiry has not been completed. On the last date of hearing, we directed the learned Government Pleader for Endowments to take instructions as to whether the enquiry is completed or not. The learned Government Pleader has reported that the enquiry is still pending. In view of the long delay in completion of the enquiry, we feel that continuation of the appellant on suspension any further would be totally unjustified, apart from that fact, prima facie the said order of suspension appears to be unsustainable. In the circumstances, therefore, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal with the following directions. The appellant shall forthwith be reinstated as a founder trustee of Sri Pandarinathji and Hanumanji Temples, Maharaj Gunj, Hyderabad and the same shall be subject to final result of the disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary enquiry as contemplated in the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments dated 26.8.2002 shall however be completed as early as possible. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions which were urged in the enquiry including the aspect of the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments to place him under suspension and to proceed with any disciplinary case against him. As and when such objections are raised, the Deputy Commissioner shall hear and pass a reasoned order on completion of enquiry, in accordance with law. To the extent indicated above, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. _____________________ (T.MEENA KUMARI,J) _________________________ (VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR,J) Dated: 21.4.2009 rkk [1] AIR 1984 AP 39