THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.11811 of 2010 DATED: 08.07.2010 Between: Mokkapati Venkata Satya Anjaneyulu .. Petitioner And The Principal Secretary to Government, Endowments Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents ORDER: Heard the learned counsel or the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents. Petitioner claims to be the son of late Mokkapati Sobhanachalapathi, who was the Hereditary Trustee of Sri Kasi Visweswara Swamy Temple situated at Teegalavancha Narasapuram Village and Mandal, West Godavari District. He states that, after the death of his father, he made an application to the 4th respondent namely Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Eluru, seeking to appoint him as hereditary trustee of the temple, and the 4th respondent, after conducting detailed enquiry, passed orders dated 28.12.2004, recognizing him as member of founder’s family, to succeed to the management of the subject temple. While so, questioning the said order, the then Chairman of the Trust Board filed a revision petition in R.P.No.49 of 2005, before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Kakinada, who passed orders on 03.12.2005, setting aside the orders dated 28.12.2004 passed by the 4th respondent. Thereupon, the petitioner preferred a revision before the 1st respondent- Government and the Government, by order dated 08.11.2006, set aside the order of the Regional Joint Commissioner, Kakinada, on the ground that the said order suffers from legal propriety, and remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent herein namely Deputy Commissioner, Kakinada, for declaration of the member of the founder’s family, as per the provisions laid down under Section 87 (h) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner states that, pursuant to the said orders of the 1st respondent, the 3rd respondent has not passed any orders in the matter and, therefore, he submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent on 16.10.2009, seeking to pass appropriate orders in the matter, but, surprisingly, the 3rd respondent, by letter dated 04.11.2009, informed that their office has not received any papers from the Government and the petitioner is at liberty to file a petition under Section 87 (h) of the Act 30 of 1987, if he is interested. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted representations to the 2nd respondent namely Commissioner, Endowments Department, on 20.01.2010, and to the 1st respondent, on 23.03.2010, bringing to their notice the above facts and requesting to pass orders directing the authority concerned to declare him as member of founder’s family and Hereditary Trustee of the subject temple. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the said representations have not been acted upon so far and, on the other hand, the respondents are taking steps to constitute a new Trust Board for the subject temple. Hence, this writ petition. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents submits that, inadvertently, the orders dated 08.11.2006 passed by the 1st respondent are not communicated to the 3rd respondent and the authorities are now taking steps to communicate the same to the 3rd respondent and, soon after such communication, the 3rd respondent will pass appropriate orders in the matter. Considering the said submission, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing that the 3rd respondent shall, after receipt of orders of the 1st respondent dated 08.11.2006, consider and pass appropriate orders in the matter, duly issuing notice to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of orders of the 1st respondent. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 8th July, 2010 IBL