( 1 ) ONE Vangala Narasimha-charyulu, Professor of Physics has filed this writ petition as a public interest litigation seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in proposing to sell the properties of Sri Kesavaswamy temple, Kothalaparru village, to an extent Of Acs. 3-00 from out of Acs. 6-82 cents comprised in R. S. No. 27 of Pandithavilluru village, Poduru mandal, West Godavari district by way of private negotiation or otherwise than by a public auction as illegal and arbitrary. Further he has sought for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 4 not to complete the said sale transaction in favour of the fifth respondent by private negotiations.

( 2 ) THE respondents 4 to 5 on service of notice have filed their respective counters whereas no counter is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. The facts are many and legal contentions raised are also many. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I found that the writ petition is entitled to be allowed on a short ground in the light of the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of-Chenchu Rami Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1986 SC 1158 and R. Venugopala Naidu v. Venkatarayuju Naidu Charities, AIR 1990 SC 444 and-/a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Y. Nageswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments-IV) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, 1989 (2) APLJ 121.

( 3 ) THE property in question belongs to Sri Kesavaswamy temple. It appears that the Board of Trustees of the temple passed a resolution at its meeting held on 18-1-1981 resolving to alienate the land in question in favour of the 5th respondent at the rate of Rs. 50,000. 00 per acre. In pursuance of the resolution the Executive Officer of the temple made an application to the State Government under S. 80 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 for short the Act seeking sanction for the alienation. The Government by its proceeding in G. O. Rt. No. 1719 dated 11/11/1991 accorded the sanction to the temple authorities to alienate the property in favour of the fifth respondent. In pursuance of the Government Order the Endowment Commissioner passed the consequential order on 26-3-1992 permitting the temple authorities to sell the land by private negotiations. After these two orders are made by the Government and the Endowment Commissioner the writ petition was filed in this Court on 25-5-1992, and this Court while issuing rule nisi stayed all further proceedings in pursuance of the aforementioned two orders made by the Government and the Endowment Commissioner. Of course in the writ petition, the petitioner has not specifically sought for quashing these two orders. But after going through the pleading of the petitioner it should be noted that the main attack was against the Governmental authorities in according sanction to the temple authorities to alienate the land. The petitioner has also produced those two orders along with the writ petition. In that view of the Order I permitted the petitioner s counsel to amend the prayer so as to seek quashing of the impugned orders also.

( 4 ) SRI P. S. Narayana, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted multifold arguments attacking the actions of the temple authorities as well as the actions of the Governmental authorities in proposing to sell the land in question in favour of the fifth respondent He contended that the whole process to alienate the land in favour of the fifth respondent emanated from a clandestine understanding between the Executive Officer of the temple and the fifth respondents; there was/is absolutely no need for the temple to alienate the property; the disposal of the property in favour of the fifth respondent is not beneficial to the third respondent temple; the conditions the existence of which is a must for the Government to accord sancti