THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.9730 of 2010 Dated: 18.06.2010 Between : V. Krishnamacharyulu … Petitioner And 1. The Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad., and 3 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.9730 of 2010 ORDER : The petitioner claims to be a Member of Vaidyam family whose forefathers were performing Archakatvam of Sri Nettikanti Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Kasapuram Village of Guntakal Mandal, Anantapur District. It is stated that the ancestors of the petitioner being the members of the founder family, were also holding trusteeship of the said temple uninterruptedly. It is also stated that one Garudacharyulu, who belongs to Kothakota family, was looking after the affairs on behalf of the petitioner’s family. It is alleged that taking advantage of his position in the management of the temple, he had manipulated the records on the basis of which the daughter-in-law of Garudacharyulu’s son (the 3rd respondent herein), was recognised as a founder family member vide orders of the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.969, Revenue (Endowments-II/1), Department, dated 18.9.2003. It is stated that the petitioner and his brothers, were not aware of the said fact. While so, G.O.Rt.No.1688, date 1.12.2009, was issued by the 1st respondent inviting applications from the interested persons for constitution of the Trust Board to the temple in question in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 15 (1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’) read with Rule 4 (1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments, Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent to nominate him as Chairman being the founder family member. Then the petitioner came to know that the 3rd respondent was recognized as founder family member vide orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.969, dated 18.9.2003. Hence the present writ petition seeking a declaration that recognition of the 3rd respondent as a member of the founder family of Nettikanti Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Kasapuram Village, Guntakal Mandal, Anantapur District as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the provisions of Section 17 and 87 (1) (h) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and consequently to set aside the order dated 18.09.2003. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. While referring to the definition of “member of the family of the founder” under Section 17(1), Explanation-II of the Act, the leaned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the 3rd respondent does not fall within the meaning of the said definition, her recognition as founder family member was contrary to law and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. The material available on record shows that pursuant to the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.969, dated 18.9.2003, recognizing the 3rd respondent herein as member of the founder family of the temple in question, she was appointed as founder trustee vide proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 20.09.2003 and she has been continuing as such as on today. As could be seen, the petitioner now disputes the entitlement of the 3rd respondent for recognition as a member of the founder family on various grounds. As per Section 87 (1) (h) of the Act, any dispute as to the question whether a person is founder or a member from the family of the founder of an institution or endowment shall be enquired into and decided by the Endowments Tribunal having jurisdiction after giving a notice in the prescribed manner to the person concerned. As per sub-section (2) of Section 87 of the Act, Endowments Tribunal is also competent to pass orders pending decision under sub-section (1) for the administration of the property or custody of money belonging to the institution or endowment. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments states that such a Tribunal has already been constituted and a judicial officer of the rank of the District Judge has been appointed as Chairman. In the circumstances, even assuming that the petitioner has a grievance with regard to recognition of the 3rd respondent as a member of the founder family of the temple in question, the petitioner ought to have availed the remedy available to him under Section 87 (1) (h) of the Act before the Endowments Tribunal. Without exhausting such efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon a decision of this Court in CHINNI SUBBA RAO v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH[1], vehemently contended that a dispute as to who shall be recognized as member of the founder family can be enquired into by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments alone under Section 87 (1) (h) of the Act and therefore the impugned order dated 18.9.2003 being without jurisdiction, this writ petition is maintainable. It is to be noticed that under Section 8 7(1) of the Act, as it stood prior to the amendment by Act No.33 of 2007, the Deputy Commissioner, having jurisdiction, was the competent authority to enquire into and decide the disputes specified therein including the dispute as to whether the person is the founder or member of the family of the founder of the institution or endowment. However by virtue of the amendment by Act No.33 of 2007 w.e.f. 3.1.2008 the powers under Section 87 (1) of the Act have been conferred on the Endowments Tribunal constituted under Section 162 of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal has been constituted and as noticed above, the same has been functioning as on today. In CHINNI SUBBA RAO’S case (1 supra) this Court was dealing with Section 87 (1) of the Act as it stood prior to the amendment Act No.33 of 2007 and in that context it was held that the Deputy Commissioner alone was competent to entertain the application and decide as to whether a person was the founder or a member of the family of the founder of an institution or endowment. The said decision which was rendered prior to the Amendment Act No.33 of 2007 has no application to the present case. It is also relevant to note that as per Section 15 (1) read with Section 17 (1), Explanation-II of the Act as they stood by the date of the impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.969, dated 18.9.2003, the Government is the competent authority to constitute a Board of Trustees as well as for recognition of the member of the founder family in respect of a temple included in the list published under Section 6 (a) whose annual income exceeds Rs.10 lakhs. Hence, the contention that the impugned order is without jurisdiction is untenable. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to avail the remedy available under Section 87 (1) (h) of the Act for redressal of his grievance, if so advised. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 18.06.2010 gbs [1] 2008 (2) ALD 123