IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19655 of 2003 Between: S.T.S. Raghavendra Chari S/o (late) S. Ranga Charyulu R/o Mogiligidda village, Farooq Nagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commissioner of Endowments, A.P., Gyderabad 2 Deputy Commissioner of Endowments (S), Tilak Road, Hyderabad 3 Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Mahabubnagar 4 Sri Ranganayaka Swamy Temple, Mogilligidda Village Farooq Nagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District rep. by Executive Officer 5. L.Muralidhar Reddy ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:None appeared Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for respondent No.4: None appeared Counsel for respondent No.5: MR R.VIJAYNANDAN REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing proceedings dated 03-09-2003, whereby the person-in-management of Sri Ranganayaka Swamy Temple (for short “the Temple”), Mogiloigidda Village, Farooq Nagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District was appointed, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims to be a member from the founder family of the above mentioned temple. He questioned the impugned proceedings, by which the person-in-management of the temple was appointed. The principal ground on which the petitioner questioned these proceedings is that before making such an appointment, he was not put on notice. At the hearing, Sri R.Vijaynandan Reddy, learned counsel representing the impleaded respondent (respondent No.5), stated that order dated 16-12-1998, by which the father of the petitioner was declared as a member of the founder family and conﬁrmed in revision by the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multizone-III, Hyderabad was the subject matter of challenge before the Government of Andhra Pradesh, which was disposed of by the Government by order dated 07- 03-2003. Respondent No.5 ﬁled a copy of the said order, wherein it is held that in view of the amendment to Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”), the Deputy Commissioner is vested with the power to decide the claims as to whether a person is a founder trustee or a member of the founder’s family and that in view of this amendment, it is reasonable to provide an opportunity to the rival claimants to represent their case before the Deputy Commissioner. The Government, therefore, advised respondent No.5 to approach the Deputy Commissioner. Inasmuch as the status of the petitioner as member of the founder family is questioned by respondent No.5, and according to the learned counsel representing him, the dispute is already raised before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner and pending, I am not inclined to invalidate the impugned proceedings appointing person-in-management only on the ground of lack of notice to the petitioner. If eventually, the petitioner’s status is declared as a founder family member, he can work out his remedies for constitution of a non-hereditary trust board. Another reason for my disinclination to interfere with the impugned order is that under Section 8 read with Section 29 of the Act, respondent No.1 is vested with the power of general superintendence and control of the religious and charitable institutions and pass appropriate orders for their administration. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 13th November, 2008 vrn