IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25713 of 2005 Between: Kanchi Venkatesam. … Petitioner And The Commissioner of Endowments Department, Ram Koti, Hyderabad and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Raj Kumar Rudra Counsel for respondents: AGP for Endowments. This Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner - who claimed that the temple in question, viz., Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple in Medak, was constructed by him about 25 years back on a private land belonged to one Dumpala Balaiah – filed this Writ Petition questioning proceedings dated 12-8- 2005 issued by respondent No.2, wherein he appointed the Executive Officer of Sri Edupayala Durga Bhavani Temple, Nagasanapally, as in charge Executive Officer of the said temple. The petitioner claimed that since the time of construction of the said temple, he is acting as a founder of the said temple and appointed a Committee consisting of five persons of Medak, which is administering the temple affairs. According to the petitioner, the temple is not duly recognized under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”) and, at any rate, Section 55(3), which applies only to maths, has no application to the petitioner’s temple and the impugned order passed in exercise of the powers under the said provision cannot be sustained. In the counter-affidavit respondent No.1 averred that the temple was registered under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act with serial No.1854 in the year 1988 and in view of several complaints received from the public against the petitioner about the mismanagement and misappropriation of the temple funds, an incharge Executive Officer is appointed for proper administration of the affairs of the said temple. It is also averred that the petitioner has not questioned the registration of the temple and, hence, under the provisions of the Act, respondent No.1 is empowered to appoint an Executive Officer or an incharge Executive Officer. At the hearing, Sri Raj Kumar Rudra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that before appointing the Executive Officer, no notice has been issued to the petitioner. In Sri Ramanama Sankirthana Sangham Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh(1) this Court held that no notice is required to be given to any person who was in the management of the temple before appointment of an Executive Officer. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice cannot be accepted. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 55 of the Act has no application to the temples and that the same applies to the maths, the learned Assistant Government Pleader stated that the said provision is wrongly mentioned instead of mentioning Section 29. The fact that respondent No.1 has power to appoint an Executive Officer is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The law is well settled that mere mentioning of a wrong provision does not vitiate the proceedings so long as the authority, which issued the proceedings, has the power to do so. Therefore, this contention is liable to be rejected. The fact remains that though the temple was registered under Section 6 (c) (ii) of the Act as far back as the year, 1988, the petitioner has not questioned the said registration. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pavani Sridhara Rao Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh(2) and contended that unless the facts and material exist showing that appointment of Executive Officer for a temple is necessary, no Executive Officer has to be appointed. I have carefully examined the judgment and I am of the view that the same has no application to the case on hand, because, in that case the Executive Officer was appointed under the provisions of the 1966 Act, which was repealed by the 1987 Act. I n Sri Ramanama Sankirthana Sangham (1 supra), the learned single Judge took note of the statutory changes brought about by the new Act, whereunder payment of the salary, allowances, pension and other remunerations of the Executive Officer is made out of the consolidated fund of the State and not from the individual income of the temple. On this premise, the learned judge held that appointment of an Executive Officer of a temple, irrespective of its financial position, is not detrimental to its interest. In this view of the matter, the said judgment is also of no avail to the petitioner. The petitioner failed to establish that appointing an Executive Officer defeats any of his legally enforceable rights. As respondent No.1 undoubtedly has jurisdiction to appoint an Executive Officer for better administration of the temple, I do not find any illegality in the appointment of an incharge Executive Officer to the subject temple. So far the petitioner is not recognized as a member of the founder family and in the event of such recognition the petitioner would only be entitled to be appointed as Chairman of the nonhereditary Trust Board as and when it is constituted. The petitioner is, therefore, given liberty to approach the competent authority for such a declaration. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. --------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:11-07-2008 MNR (1) 2006 (2) ALT 18 (2) (1996) 8 SCC 298