THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1137 of 2006 ORDER: The 1st respondent passed an order dated 12.01.2006 appointing the 3rd respondent as Manager of Sri Nagamambha Varalakshmi Dharma Nilayam, Guntur. The petitioner states that he has been elected as President of the institution and the 1st respondent issued the impugned proceedings, without issuing notice to him or the committee and without information to the 2nd respondent. He states that earlier, the institution was exempted from operation under Sections 15 and 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) and even while the matter pertaining to further extension is pending, the impugned order was issued. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit, stating that the properties of the institution have been mismanaged and that income thereof was not properly accounted for. He is said to have appointed the 3rd respondent in exercise of powers under Section 15 of the Act. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit almost on the same lines. He is said to have taken charge of the managing affairs of the institution. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The institution in question came into existence way back in the year 1934-35 for the welfare of Viswa Brahmins. The Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1296, dated 23.04.2000 exempting the institution from operations under Sections 15 and 29 of the Act. The institution has its own arrangement as to the management of properties, carrying out its object etc. The 1st respondent no doubt has power to ensure that the affairs of the institution are properly conducted. In case, he wanted to supersede the existing management and to appoint an official as a single trustee, he ought to have issued notice to the existing management. Further, if there are internal disputes, the parties ought to have been required to resolve the same in accordance with law. The 1st respondent was not at all justified in straight away appointing the 3rd respondent as a single trustee, without even mentioning the background. He did not take into account the fact that the Government itself exempted the institution for quite some time from the operation under Sections 15 and 29 of the Act. In case, the 1st respondent noticed any extra-ordinary situations, he ought to have referred the matter to the 2nd respondent who is the apex authority. He did neither. The 3rd respondent cannot claim any personal or individual rights, being an employee of the Department. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set side. It is directed that the affairs of the institution shall be conducted strictly in accordance with the existing scheme. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 07.06.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1137 of 2006 Date: 07.06.2010 JSU