THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.3382 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the impugned notice in Rc.No.A5/1250/05 dated 9.2.2005 issued by second respondent as arbitrary, illegal and consequently set aside the same. According to the petitioner, his ancestors have donated a tank known as Narnevari Cheruvu in an extent of Ac.48-12 cents in D.No.418 located in Vinjanampadu, hamlet of Kornepadu in Vatticherukuru mandal of Guntur district. In the 17th century, an extent of Ac.8-38 cents in D.No.535 adjacent to Tank was endowed by Narne Muthyalu, ancestor of Narnevari family and named it as Tope. Further, an extent of Ac.19-35 cents of land was kept apart by Narnevari family for the maintenance of the tank. In the due course of time, the tank was extended into a part of tope and the same became part and parcel of the tank. In the survey and settlement which took place in the year 1873, Mannava Viranna and Narne Bapudu were the in charge of the said Charities. In the resurvey and resettlement took place in the year 1906, this charitable endowment came into the management of Narnevari family members and they were shown as pattedars in the resurvey and resettlement register. Thereafter, in the year 1957, Narne China Punnaiah S/o Lingaiah executed a will in favour of his grand son Katta Ramachandra Rao to manage the charities. The said Katta Ramachandra Rao during his lifetime had filed O.A.No.55 of 1978 before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Guntur seeking for declaration of Hereditary Trusteeship under Section 77(1) (c) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 17 of 1966 and the Deputy Commissioner passed orders in the said O.A. on 17.9.1979 declaring that the trusteeship of the tank known as ‘Narnevari Cheruvu’ and its properties situated at Vinjanampadu village, hamlet of Kornepadu, Guntur district as hereditary and it vests in the family of the petitioner. Since then the petitioners in O.A.No.55 of 1978 were in the management of the tank and its properties. While that being so, petitioner along with his family members filed application before the second respondent for recognition of their rights as founder family members. After due enquiry and verification of the records, the second respondent passed orders dated 8.6.2004 in proceedings No.A5/4561/2004 holding that the petitioner and others are the founder family members of Sri Narnevari Dharmadayam Tank, Vinjanampadu village of Vatticherukuru mandal, Guntur district. While that being so, under the impugned notice dated 9.2.2005 applications were called for from the eligible persons for being appointed as Trustees of the said property. According to the petitioner, his trusteeship was recognized as early as in the year 1977, which became final in A.S.No.487 of 1984 and in the further appeal before this Court. Therefore, the impugned notice inviting applications for appointment as trustees is arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this is a charitable endowment and not a religious endowment, therefore there is no necessity of appointing new managing trustees. Even assuming that the respondents can constitute a managing trustee, they can do so only if there are grave irregularities committed by the petitioner, and that too after issuing notice to the petitioner and conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter. The respondents have filed a detailed counter stating that the petitioner has committed certain irregularities, therefore the impugned notice has been issued for better administration of the tank. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned notice and other material made available on record. The fact that the ‘Narnevari Cheruvu’ was donated by the ancestors of the petitioner and an endowment was created for its maintenance is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner and his family members were declared as hereditary trustees in the earlier proceedings which concluded before this Court. The only ground on which notice under Section 15 of Act 30 of 1987 was issued is that the petitioner is not maintaining the tank properly and has mis-utilised and abused the powers of the trustee. May be, in a given case, the respondents are entitled to conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders for removing the trustee and call for applications for appointing new managing trustee, but this is a case, admittedly, no notice of any kind was issued to the petitioner and it appears the alleged enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned notice could not have been issued without conducting a detailed enquiry into the allegations made against the petitioner, which is in gross violation of principles of natural justice, therefore the same is liable to be set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. However, respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action against the petitioner, as per law, if necessary, after putting the petitioner on notice and hearing him personally. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 23.12.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.3382 of 2005 23.12.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.3382 of 2005 Date: 23rd December, 2010 Between: Narne Harikrishna Rao .. Petitioner And State of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents