( 1 ) THE petitioner claims to be a member of family that constructed the temple known as sri Kattamaisamma Mahalakshmi Temple , Begumpet, Hyderabad. He claims that due to his efforts the temple acquired valuable properties and prominence. It was registered under Section 43 of the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, the Act ). He filed an application being O. A. No. 16 of 1994 before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, to declare him as member of the founder s family. After due enquiry, the said official by order dt. 15. 3. 1995 recognised the petitioner as founder member of the temple. Aggrieved by the same, a revision was filed before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-III, first respondent herein. The said revision being Revision Petition No. 40 of 1997 was allowed by the first respondent by order dt. 22. 9. 1997 setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 817 of 1997 and also circular instructions of the Commissioner of Endowments dt. 25. 3. 1996 the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to declare a person as member of founder s family and only Assistant Commissioner can do so. The petitioner therefore approached the Assistant Commissioner who appears to have conducted enquiry and declared the petitioner as member of the founder s family by proceedings dt. 10. 5. 2001.

( 2 ) THE second respondent herein claiming to be "person interested" preferred a revision petition before the first respondent. The same being R. P. No. 39 of 2001 was allowed on 1. 6. 2002 and the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner dt. 10. 5. 2001 were set aside and case was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad for necessary enquiry. The second respondent was also given opportunity to avail appropriate remedy under Section 87 read with Section 45 of the Act for deleting relevant entry in the endowments register purporting to show the petitioner s family members as founders. The order of the first respondent dt. 1. 6. 2002 in R. P. No. 39 of 2001 is assailed in the writ petition.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Sri A. Krishna Murthy submits that the second respondent is not interested and therefore at his instance the first respondent could not have entertained a revision petition under Section 92 of the Act, that the second respondent preferred revision petition after expiry of 90 days and therefore the same is barred by limitation and that the declaration given by the Assistant Commissioner initially is final and cannot be revised.

( 4 ) SRI M. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel appearing for second respondent, submits that the temple in question is classified under Section 6 (b) of the Act and therefore the Deputy Commissioner is alone competent to appoint Board of Trustees under Section 15 (b) of the Act. As a necessary corollary the Deputy Commissioner alone is competent to recognise/declare a person as belonging to founder s family and the Assistant Commissioner is not competent to give such declaration. He refutes the contention that the revision is barred by limitation. He submits that second respondent came to know about the proceedings issued by the Assistant Commissioner only when the petitioner claimed right as founder trustee in the temple. Second respondent immediately obtained order copy on 20. 8. 2001 and filed a revision. The alleged enquiry by Assistant Commissioner was closely guarded secret where neither the second respondent or public are aware of any such enquiry and therefore the revision filed is within time. He lastly contends that when the order of Assistant Commissioner declaring the petitioner as member of the founder s family is itself without jurisdiction no finality can be attached to the same. The case on hand requires a decision on two questions - (I) whether the second respondent is "person interested" to invoke jurisdiction