LINGARAJA RATH, J.

( 1 ) IN assailing the order of the learned single Judge rejecting Writ Petition No. 22651 of 1994 in which challenge was made to the order of appointment of the Executive officer dated 29-8-1990 as also to the revisional order dated 1-10-1994 dismissing the revision, Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant firstly contended of there being no power in the commissioner of Endowments to appoint the Executive Officer as the power, according to him, vests in the Government alone. It was secondly urged that no appointment of Executive Officer is warranted since the income of the institution is less than Rs. 50,000/ -. The last contention of Mr. Rao is that there was no justification for appointment of the Executive officer as there were no materials to adopt such a course.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the hereditary trustee of the institution, Sri Hatakeswara Swamy temple, Singupuram, Srikakulam Mandal and district. A report was submitted by the inspector of Endowments to the Assistant commissioner of Endowments on 4-11-1989 alleging non-accountability of 1828 bags of paddy due to the institution for the period 1985-86 to 1988-89 as also of Rs. 330/- cash. It was alleged that no steps have been taken by the appellant to collect the paddy bags or the money besides, an allegation was also made that he was not submitting the accounts of the institution. The matter having moved higher-up, the Deputy Commissioner addressed a letter to the Commissioner on 22-2-1990 bringing such facts to the notice of the Commissioner and urged for appointment of an Executive Officer. The order was passed by the Commissioner on 29-8-1990 appointing the Executive Officer, group Temples, Srikakulam as the Executive officer in full additional charge of Sri Hatakeswara swamy Temple, Singupuram, srikakulam, because of the situation reported by the Deputy Commissioner and in the interest of public. The appellant filed a revision before the Government in which the order dated 29-8-1990 was stayed on 26-9-1990. The revision was dismissed on 1-10-1994 by the Government reciting that the case had been posted for hearing on 21-12-1993, 16-6-1994 and finally on 8-7-1994, that the appellant, though, had been granted sufficient opportunity, yet, had failed to appear and that hence, the prayer of the appellant might have become infructuous. The revisional order was challenged by the appellant in Writ Petition No. 22651/94 in which an order of interim stay was made on 29-12-1994. That writ petition having been dismissed on 21-4-1997, the present appeal has been preferred.

( 3 ) CONTESTING the submissions of Mr. Rao, the learned Govt. Pleader for Endowments submits the Commissioner to have power to appoint the Executive Officer under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu religious Institutions and Endowments act, 1987 (for short, the Act ). She also contends of there having been sufficient material to appoint an Executive Officer.

( 4 ) SECTION 29 of the Act provides under sub-section (1) that the Government may constitute not more than three charitable or religious institutions or endowments each of whose annual income is rupees fifty thousand but does not exceed rupees one lakh into such groups as may be prescribed. Sub-section (2) provides, 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 under this Act. Under sub-section (3), the Government is to frame rules prescribing the appointing authorities of the Executive officers. The second proviso to sub-section (3) stipulates that the Government would be competent to appoint Regional Joint commissioner, a Deputy Commissioner or an Assistant Commissioner as an Executive officer. A reading of the provisions show that primarily, the appointing authority of the Executive Officers would be the authority prescribed under the rules to b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document