A. R. LAKSHAMANAN, J.

( 1 ) AS the issues involved in both these writ petitions are similar, they can be disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions, facts are taken from Writ Petition No. 2250 of 1991.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a hereditary trustee of Sri Rameswaraswamy temple and sri Venugopala Swamy temple, Nagula uppalapalem village. The writ petition was filed to quash the office reference no. G2/15093/90, dated 18-6-1990 and the consequential proceedings in rc. No. B2/1144/90, dated 23-6-1990 by which the Assistant Commissioner of endowments appointed Executive Officer.

( 3 ) THE only contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 1st respondent has passed the order appointing an Executive Officer without arty prior notice to the person in management. The petitioner being the hereditary trustee is in the management of the two temples and therefore the 1st respondent cannot disturb the management of the petitioner by appointment of an executive Officer under the proceedings in question. In support of the said contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the supreme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document