HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1299 OF 2009 Dated: 05-11-2009 Between: Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam, Dwaraka Tirumala, West Godavari District, rep., by its Executive Officer and anther ... APPELLANT AND Smt. E. Mahila Devi and another ... RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1299 OF 2009 JUDGEMENT: (per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This writ appeal has been filed against order dated 23-10-2009 in Writ Petition No. 15684 of 2009, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside order dated 20-06- 2009 passed by respondent No.2. The facts of the case have been narrated in detail by the learned single Judge in the order under appeal. Therefore, to avoid repetition, we refrain from mentioning the facts in detail. For the purpose of disposal of this writ appeal, it would suffice to note that as respondent No.1 was unable to manage the choultry called Sri Kirlampudi Choultry, Arampudi Annavaram, East Godavari District as founder trustee of the said choultry, she made a representation to respondent No.2 to takeover the said choultry and handover the same in adoption to Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devastanam, Dwaraka Tirumala, West Godavari District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Devasthanam’). Acceding to the said request of respondent No.1, respondent No.2 initially passed order dated 26-06-2006 giving the choultry in dispute in adoption for a period of three years. The Executive Officer of the institution made a request on 16-06-2009 to extend the adoption for a further period in order to continue the developmental works that were undertaken by the Devasthanam. In pursuance of the said request, respondent No.2 passed order dated 20-06-2009, whereby the period of adoption was extended for a further period of three years from 26-06-2009. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No. 15684 of 2009. The learned single Judge by his order dated 23-10-2009 allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 20-06-2009 and directed respondent No. 2 to pass a fresh order after considering the objections of respondent No.1 for continuation of adoption. The said order is questioned in this appeal by the Devasthanam as well as the choultry through their respective executive officers. We have carefully heard Sri V. Venugopala Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the record. The main ground on which the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition was that before passing the order impugned in the writ petition, respondent No.2 has not given an opportunity of filing her objections to respondent No.1. The facts of the case show that an order under Section 145 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’) was passed by respondent No.2 only on the request of respondent No.1. Though the period for which adoption can be directed to be made is not stipulated in Section145 (1) of the Act, respondent No.2 had however limited the period initially for three years. Having regard to the circumstances explained by the Executive Officer in the letter referred to above, the Commissioner felt it necessary to extend this period further. From a careful reading of the provisions of Section 145, we are of the view that respondent No.2 is not obligated to issue a notice before deciding to extend the adoption. The scheme of the said provision suggests that where the Commissioner finds the institution which was amalgamated or adopted was subsequently found to be capable of being managed by itself, he may in the interest of the proper management of administration revoke the orders passed under sub-Section (1) of Section 145 of the Act. A person who is aggrieved by such an order can file an appeal before the Government. Therefore, looking to the scope of Section 145, we are of the view that it was not obligatory on the part of the Commissioner to issue a notice to any person including the person in the management of the institution prior to adoption, before extending the adoption. We may however hasten to add that where in a given case, if it has been established that either the institution after adoption has been mismanaged or the objects for which the institution has been founded were frustrated by the adoptive institution, it shall always be open to the person who was interested in the adopted institution to seek revocation of the order of adoption by approaching the Commissioner with appropriate representation. If such a person feels aggrieved by the decision taken by the Commissioner, he can seek appropriate remedy. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the learned single Judge was not justified in interfering with the order impugned in the writ petition. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned single Judge. Respondent No.1 is however permitted to make a representation by raising all the objections which are permissible in law, for continuation of adoption. If such a representation is made, respondent No.2 shall pass a reasoned order, after hearing the appellants, respondentNo.1 and all other concerned parties, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of representation by respondent No.2. Subject to the above directions, the writ appeal is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ appeal as allowed, WAMP No. 2722 of 2009, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 05-11-2009 ks