THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.24955 of 2010 Between: Pilarisetty Venkata Ramana Rao PETITIONER And 1. Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh, and another. RESPONDENS ORDER: Order of eviction in O.A.No.23 of 2006 dated 3.08.2010 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal is under challenge in this writ petition by the petitioner, who claims to be a tenant of the subject property. Brief facts, which are sufficient to dispose of this matter are: The respondents, viz., Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department and Sri Raja Rajeswara Swamy Temple authority, approached the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur, by filing O.A.No.23 of 2006 for eviction of the petitioner herein from the shop bearing No.37-1-264, Trunk Road, Ongole, which has been in his occupation allegedly as a tenant. The O.A. was taken up on the file and was partly heard. The Deputy Commissioner in the course of enquiry recorded the evidence of the Manager of the 2nd respondent-temple and marked documentary evidence. After conclusion of the evidence, the matter was posted for arguments to 5.06.2010. In the meanwhile, the amending Act 33/2007 came into force w.e.f., 3.01.2008, amending Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. By virtue of the said amendment, the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner was taken away and vested the same in the Endowments Tribunal. Though the said enactment came into force w.e.f., 3.01.2008, the Tribunal in the State of A.P., was not established until 25.05.2010. By virtue of Section 87(5) of the Act, which prescribes that the Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction shall continue to enquire into and decide the disputes until the constitution of the Endowments Tribunal, the subject proceedings were kept on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, however, without there being any progress after the matter was posted for arguments. As aforesaid, after the constitution of Tribunal on 25.05.2010, the Deputy Commissioner, who was no longer competent to proceed with the case, transferred the case to the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal assumed jurisdiction and was entitled to proceed with the matter. The Tribunal after assuming jurisdiction is required to put the parties on notice. Section 83 of the Act r/w Rule 7(2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Tribunal Rules 2010 enjoins upon the Tribunal to issue summons to the respondents, along with the copies of the application and documents etc., by registered post with acknowledgement due or by any mode of service, which it thinks fit. Service of summons is not only mandatory in the rules but it is also in consonance with the principles of natural justice. However, in the instant case, the Tribunal has not thought it fit to issue summons to the petitioner and decided the matter ex parte. The Tribunal in the preamble of its order has stated that after transfer of the matter it had served summons to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court called for the record of the Tribunal and on perusal of the same, it is noticed that the Standing Counsel appearing in the O.A. on behalf of the 2nd respondent-temple, filed a memo before the Tribunal that he had contacted the counsel for the petitioner Sri M. Raja Ram Advocate, Ongole, on his mobile No. 9440183051 and informed him the fact of transfer of case to the Endowments Tribunal and the date of posting of the case to 27.07.2009. The record does not disclose any notice or summons issued by the Tribunal. Evidently, the Tribunal proceeded with the case on the basis of the memo of the learned Standing Counsel. This Court is constrained to observe that the Tribunal has failed to follow the minimum requirements under law by issuing summons, instead it has followed a procedure unknown to law by relying on a memo of the counsel appearing for the opposite party, a procedure unknown to law. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, who is the 1st petitioner in the O.A., before the Tribunal in all fairness has stated in his affidavit at para 4 as follows. “In reply to para No.3, it is submitted that before taking up the O.A.No.24/2006 the Endowments Tribunal has given notice to the Writ Petitioner through his advocate. On the directions of the Hon’ble Presiding Officer of the Endowments Tribunal, the Standing Counsel appearing in O.A.No.23/2006 on behalf of the temple had contacted the Counsel for the Writ Petitioner namely Sri M. Raja Ram residing at Ongole (Mobile No.9440183051) and informed him the fact of transfer of the case to Hon’ble Endowments Tribunal from the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur. He has also informed him that the case stands posted to 27.07.2009. He has also further informed to Sri V.V.S.R.K. Prasad who is practicing in Guntur and also looking after the cases of Sri M. Raja Ram in Guntur. The arguments were heard on 27.07.2009 and judgment was pronounced on 3.08.2010.” The aforesaid statement of the Assistant Commissioner vindicates the stand of the petitioner that he had no notice of the proceedings before the Tribunal. Unfortunately, the Tribunal decided the matter in the absence of the petitioner by incorrectly recording that despite service of notice the petitioner failed to attend. The impugned order therefore deserves to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. The Tribunal shall issue summons to the petitioner and take up the matter for reconsideration in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 18th November, 2011. Js.