P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, C. J.

( 1 ) THE appellant herein filed W. P. No. 12775 of 1997 questioning the order dated 10-6-1997 passed by the third respondent consequent to the order of the second respondent dt. 7-6-1997 directing transfer of the petitioner from sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupathi to Sri Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple, gandi, Cuddapah District. The petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, which is an institution governed by the provisions of A. P. Chari table and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments act. The said institution is being administered by the custodian of the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Endowments. As regards the circumstances warranting the transfer of petitioner, it cannot be gainsaid that there is adequate and ample material as disclosed from the averments in the counter- affidavit. The only point urged before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Commissioner of Endowment (Respondent No. 2) has no jurisdiction to direct transfer of the employees from one religious institution to another religious institution, notwithstanding Sec. 39 of the Act. The learned single Judge, following the latest decision of Division Bench in P. S. R. Subrahmanyam vs. Commissioner, Endowments rejected the above contention.

( 2 ) SECTION 39 of the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions andendowments Act, 1987 lays down as follows: "sec. 39: Transfer of office holders and servants: (1) The Commissioner shall have power to transfer any office holder or servant attached to a charitable or religious institution or endowment from that institution or endowment to any other institution or endowment in accordance with such rules as may be made by the government in this behalf. "

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant contends that in the absence of Rules, the power of transfer cannot be exercised by the Commissioner. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in The Commissioner of Endowments Dept. A. P. vs. G. Venkateswarlu. The short note version of the said decision reads as follows: "institutions with small incomes should not be touched either by grouping or by appointing Executive Officers unless the Government makes rules in this behalf. It makes the intention of the Legislature plain that the Commissioner whenever he wants any grouping of certain institutions and endowments can do so only in accordance with the rules if any, made by the Government. In other words if there are no rules, the Commissioner shali not exercise the power. "

( 4 ) IT is seen that the said decision was rendered in the context of a differentprovision relating to grouping of institutions under Sec. 27 (2) of the old Act. The power of transfer expressly vested with the Commissioner was not the subject matter of decision in that case. That apart, the decision of the Supreme court in Surinder Singh vs. Central Government puts the matter beyond doubt. The Supreme Court took the view that the non-framing of the rules is not always an obstacle for exercising the substantive power vested on the repository by the Act itself. The Supreme Court observed:- "where a statute confers powers on an authority to do certain acts or exercise power in respect of certain matters, subject to rules, the exercise of power conferred by the statute does not depend on the existence of rules unless the statute expressly provides for the same. In other words framing of the Rules is not condition precedent to the exercise of the power expressly and unconditionally conferred by the statute. The expression "subject to the Rules" only means, in accordance with the rules, if any. If rules are framed, the powers so confirmed (sic. conferred) on authority could be exercised in accordance with these rules. But if no rules are framed there is no void and the authority is not precluded from exercising the power conferred by the statute. "

( 5 ) RECENTLY, a Division Bench of thi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document