( 1 ) THE petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge memorandum issued by Government of A. P. bearing Memo No. 66190/endts. IV (2)/2002- 2 dated 17. 1. 2003 whereby and whereunder the representation made by the petitioner dated 27. 8. 2002 seeking exemption from the operation of provisions of Section 15 of the a. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 ( act for brevity) was rejected by government of A. P. , first respondent herein.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition in brief are as follows. Sri venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam, dwaraka Tirumala, West Godavari District is a religious institution governed by the provisions of Act. The petitioner belongs to "suraneni" family, ex-jamindars of mylavaram Estate. The petitioner claims that government recognized members of suraneni family of Mylavaram as hereditary trustees of Sri Venkateswara Swamy devasthanam, Dwaraka Tirumala. By proceedings dated 7. 6. 1989, it is alleged that petitioner was also recognized as a member of founders family along with three others belonging to other branch of Suraneni family. Government vide their orders in G. O. Ms. No. 487 dated 31. 6. 1996 appointed petitioner and three others and an Executive officer as a Special Authority to manage the affairs of Devasthanam.

( 3 ) THE petitioner claims that after the death of his father, he was recognized as hereditary trustee and he strived hard for the development of Devasthanam without any complaint from any quarter. The income of the Temple increased ten fold in 2001- 2002 and under him developmental works costing about Rs. 3. 10 lakhs were taken up. The petitioner and other members of the family filed an application on 27. 8. 2002 seeking exemption of Temple from the operation of Section 15 of the Act. The petitioner alleges that first respondent sent application to second respondent and second respondent by letter dated 17. 2. 2003 addressed to the Special Officer of devasthanam communicated the orders of government dated 17. 1. 2003 rejecting the application for exemption, which is assailed.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for petitioner sri P. Yadgir Rao contends that Government have failed to exercise the power vested in them under Section 154 of the Act. It is his submission that Government failed to consider various grounds under which exemption under Section 154 was sought. It is his contention that Dwaraka Tirumala Temple is being administered by petitioner and other members of founders family to the satisfaction of one and all and therefore it is a fit case for exemption from the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. Be it noted that if the Government exempts Dwaraka Tirumala temple from the provisions of Section 15 of the Act, there would not be any necessity to appoint a Board of non-hereditary trustee to manage the affairs of temple. He also contends that when the exemption application is. rejected, Government is bound to give reasons and failure to do so vitiates impugned order. The impugned order is not even comunicated to the petitioner which is improper. The learned Counsel also made a submission that the Commissioner of Endowments vide his report dated 25. 11. 2002 also recommended to the government of A. P. to exempt Dwaraka tirumala Temple from the provisions of the act. The learned Counsel places reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this court in Hitakarini Samaj, Rqjahmundry v. State ofa. P. , 1995 (5) ALD 324 (DB ). The learned Assistant Government Pleader sri Venkatadri opposes the writ petition and contends that Government passed impugned order rejecting the request of petitioner for exemption keeping in view the objects of the Act and the same is in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

( 5 ) THE statement of objects and reasons accompanying Legislative Bill, which was enacted as an Act No. 30 of 1987 shows that after receiving representations from