HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11894 of 2003 Date : 01.12.2011 Between : Sri Chinna Mallappa Swamy Mutt, Suggepalli, rep. by its Agent and Power of Attorney Holder. …..Petitioner And Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11894 of 2003 ORDER : The petitioner, a Mutt, registered under the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Endowments Act’), has filed this writ petition, questioning the order of the Commissioner, Endowments, Hyderabad, dated 23rd April 2003, passed in R.C.No.G3/8711/2003-11(7). By the aforesaid order, in exercise of power under Section 29(v)(d) of the Endowments Act (which Section was in force at the relevant point of time), the Commissioner of Endowments authorized the 4th respondent herein as the person-in-management for a group of temples, 14 in number, and directed him to discharge the duties of the Executive Officer. Among the 14 listed institutions, petitioner stands at Serial No.6, which is a Mutt, but not a temple. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the said Mutt has been established by the Swamiji for propagating the path of Sri Chinna Mallappa Swamy and it is a private Mutt. It is stated that the income of the Mutt is not more than Rs.20,000/- per annum. It is the allegation of the petitioner that only at the instance of certain persons, who are eying the property owned by the Mutt, the impugned proceedings are issued, though it is not a temple so as to club along with other institutions. It is stated that having regard to the provisions under the Endowments Act, the 1st respondent is not empowered to exercise the powers under Section 29(v)(d), as much as the income of the petitioner is not more than Rs.20,000/-, and in any event, it is not open for the respondents to club 14 institutions and pass orders directing the 4th respondent to discharge the duties of Executive Officer. At the stage of admission, this Court granted interim order on 24.06.2003, and the said order continued all along. Though the writ petition is of 2003, no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. The 4th respondent, who is ordered to discharge the functions of the Executive Officer, has filed counter affidavit. In the counter, while denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the Commissioner of Endowments has exercised the power under Section 29(v)(d) of the Endowments Act and in the absence of violating any Rules, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for invalidation of the impugned proceedings. Section 29 of the Endowments Act deals with appointment and duties of the Executive Officer. In view of the provision under Section 29(1) of the Act, grouping is not permissible for more than three institutions. Even for such group, the institutions must have income more than Rs.50,000/-. In this case, the specific ascertain made by the petitioner is that the income of the petitioner-Institution which is a Mutt, is only Rs.20,000/-. In any event, it is to be noticed that by grouping 14 Institutions together, no order could have been passed, affecting the interest of the petitioner-institution. The provision under Section 29(v)(d) itself is amended, and no such power exists as of now. So far as Mutts are concerned, they are covered under Chapter-V of the Endowments Act. As it is stated that presently the institution is administered by Mattadhipathi, without taking any steps for removal of such Mattadhipathi, it is not known as to how such an order could be passed appointing respondent No.4 to discharge the functions of the Executive Officer. For the aforesaid reasons, and in the absence of any counter affidavit from respondents 1 to 3, I deem it is a fit case to set aside the impugned order as far as the petitioner-Institution is concerned. Accordingly, the order, dated 23rd April 2003, passed by the 1st respondent- Commissioner in R.C.No.G3/8711/2003-11(7), is set aside insofar as the petitioner-Institute is concerned. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 1st December 2011 ajr