THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 1934 OF 2003 Dated: 30.09.2010 Between: K.Divayya Chowdry ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 1934 OF 2003 ORDER : The 4th respondent herein was recognised as a member of the founder family of Sri Lakshmipathi Swamy Vari Temple, Pedamuttevi village, Krishna District, vide proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Vijayawada dated 16.01.1997. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred a revision petition under Section 92 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’) before the 2nd respondent-Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments. The said revision petition was dismissed by order dated 13.01.2000. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a further revision petition under Section 93 of the Act before the 1st respondent which was also dismissed vide G.O.Rt.No.560, Revenue (Endowments-IV) Department, dated 14.03.2001, thereby upholding the 2nd respondent’s order dated 13.01.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. It is primarily contended by the petitioner that the temple in question being a temple classified under Section 6 (b) of the Act, it is under the administrative control of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments and therefore, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments dated 16.01.1997 is without jurisdiction. Heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record, including the counter affidavits filed by respondents 1 and 4. At the outset, it is to be noticed that as per Section 87 of the Act as amended by Act No.29 of 2002 and Act No.33 of 2007 any dispute as to the question whether a person is a founder or a member from the family of the founder of an institution or endowment has to be decided by the Endowments Tribunal having jurisdiction. In the light of such an efficacious alternative statutory remedy available under Seiction 87 (1) (h) of the Act, it is not necessary for this Court to adjudicate the rival claims made by the petitioner and the respondent 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy available before the Endowments Tribunal. If any such dispute is raised by the petitioner, the Tribunal shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders after hearing both parties without having regard to the earlier orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 30.09.2010 Ivd