( 1 ) FACTS in Writ Appeal No. 461 of 1999 are stated for purpose of understanding the dispute that arises. This appeal arises out of decision rendered in WP No. 14680 of 1996. The said writ petition was as follows :the founder Sri Ram Mohana Rao had purchased certain vacant land and created charitable endowment in the name of "sri Tadavarthy Rama Mohan Rao Choultry". The writ petitioner is a hereditary trustee of the said Trust. The Trust was originally created long back. The Endowment Department passed order on 4-7-1996 appointing an Executive Officer to manage the Trust in question under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereafter referred to as the act ). The petitioner challenged the appointment of the said Executive Officer. The order passed by the Endowment Department directed the petitioner to handover complete charge of the records, accounts, movable and immovable property to the Executive Officer.

( 2 ) IN all other cases petitioners are the hereditary trustees of Trust or Endowment founded long back and orders have been passed appointing Executive Officer under the provisions of the Act. The said orders are challenged.

( 3 ) THE department took a stand that there was power to appoint an Executive Officer under the provisions of the Act. Hence the orders challenged do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners have contended that an Executive Officer can be appointed under Section 29 of the Act by the Government under certain circumstances. The relevant portion of Section 29 of the Act is as follows :" (1) The Government may constitute not more than three charitable or religious institutions or endowments each of whose annual income is rupees one lakh into such groups as may be prescribed. (2) For each such group of charitable or religious institutions or endowments there shall be appointed an Executive Officer for exercising the powers and discharging the duties conferred on him by or order under this Act. . . . . . . . . . .

( 5 ) IT is argued that the Government can constitute a group of not more than three charitable institutions or endowments whose annual income is Rs. 50,000. 00 (Rupees fifty thousands only) but not exceeding Rs. 1 lakh annually and for each such group Executive Officer can be appointed by the Government. However, such appointment can be made only when there are allegations of mismanagement of the said Trust or Endowment by the existing trustees. Such mismanagement has to be shown by making an appropriate enquiry after giving opportunity to the Trustee-incharge to show cause against the proposed action. The learned Counsel have relied on certain decisions for such argument. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent-authorities submits that apart from power under Section 29, Section 8 of the Act enables the Commissioner, Additional Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner as the case may be to have general superintendance and control over the administration of Charitable Hindu Religious and Endowments. By exercising powers under Section 8 of the Act it is permissible for the Commissioner to appoint an Executive Officer for the management of a particular endowment/ trust. The power to appoint an Executive Officer is not traceable only to Section 29 of the Act.

( 6 ) IT has already been pointed out that in all the cases the petitioners are hereditary trustees. They arc not founder-trustees themselves nor they have been appointed or elected as trustees. Section 16 of the Act has abolished the office of hereditary trustee or muthawalli or by whatever name it is called. Section 16 begins with a non abstante clause and says:"notwithstanding any compromise or agreement entered into or scheme framed, or judgment, decree, or order passed by any Court, Tribunal or other authority or in a deed or other document prior to the commencement of this Act and