THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 14550 of 2003 Dated: 30.09.2010 Between: Rajasthani Pragathi Samaj, R.R.District. … Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Secretary, Hyderabad and 3 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 14550 of 2003 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order dated 31.08.2001 passed by the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Endowments authorising the 4th respondent herein to exercise the powers, perform the functions and discharge the duties of Executive Officer of Sri Balaji Temple, Tanduru as confirmed by the 1st respondent vide memo dated 11.03.2003 is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner herein claims to be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act formed for the welfare and promotion of religious denomination and linguistic minority of Maheswari Agarwal and Brahmin of Marwadi community. It is stated that the petitioner-society has founded and constructed the temple by name Sri Balaji temple at Tanduru and the poojas and other functions in the temple are being performed by the petitioner’s community as per their customs and conventions. While so, the 2nd respondent in exercise of powers conferred under Section 29(5) (d) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Endowments Act’) authorised the 4th respondent herein as person-in-management to Sri Balaji temple vide proceedings dated 31.08.2001. Challenging the same, the petitioner-society preferred a revision petition before the 1st respondent, which was dismissed by order dated 11.03.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed contending interi alia that Sri Balaji temple is a private temple which is founded and constructed by the petitioner-society and that it has been registered under Section 43 of the Endowments Act as a denominational institution and therefore, it enjoys the protection under Article 26 of the constitution of India. Thus, it is contended that the impugned order appointing the person-in-management in purported exercise of powers under Section 29(5)(d) of the Act is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record including the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. In Pavani Sridhra Rao v. Governent of Andhra Pradesh[1], while dealing with the scope and object of Section 27 of the Repealed Endowments Act, 1966 it was held that under Section 27, which is akin to Section 29 of the Endowments Act, 1987, though the Commissioner could appoint an Executive Officer for discharging the duties of institution for exercising the powers and discharging the duties conferred on him that power has to be exercised at relevant data and on necessary facts and material and that it could not be exercised just offhand without there being any necessity for appointing an Executive Officer for the temple in public interest. Thus, it is clear that the power under section 29 of the Endowments Act has to be exercised only if it is necessary in public interest. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order dated 31-08-2001 passed by the 2nd respondent did not reveal any reasons warranting appointment of the person-in- management. Nowhere it is stated that it is of any public interest and for better management of the institution. The 1st respondent had confirmed the 2nd respondent’s order mechanically without application of mind to the settled legal position. It is also relevant to notice that Section 29 of the Act has been substituted by recent amendment by Act No.33 of 2007. As per the second proviso to Section 29(1) as amended by Act 33 of 2007 a Commissioner shall be competent to appoint an Executive Officer if there are substantial immovable properties to the institution or if he is satisfied that such appointment is necessary in the interest of better administration of the institution or for any other reason to be recorded in writing. In view of the amended provisions of Section 29 of the Endowments Act, particularly since the impugned order did not reveal any reasons for appointing a person in Management, the matter requires reconsideration. Accordingly, the impugned orders are hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders, if necessary in accordance with Section 29 of the Endowments Act as amended by Act No.No.33 of 2007. No costs. ​ ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 30.09.2010 KLP [1] 1996(8) SCC 298