The appointment of an Executive Officer under the old Act would continue even after the commencement of the new Act, as there was no specific provision in the new Act prohibiting such appointment for institutions with an annual income less than Rs. 50,000.

( 1 ) AS the Writ Appeal and Writ Petition are inter-connected, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) WRIT Appeal No. 456 of 1987 arises out of a judgment of the learned single judge dismissing W. P No. 531 of 1980.

( 3 ) ONE Pavani Sridhara Rao filed W. P. No. 531 of 1980 aggrieved by the memo dated 30-12-78 of the 1st respondent, confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 30-5-78. The facts leading to the said petition are that a saintly person by name Tummala Venugopala Swamy came to the village of the petitioner and expressed his desire to engage himself in peaceful meditation. Petitioner gave him a site and constructed an Ashram in the land belonging to the petitioner in S. No. 201 of Mogilicherla village with the donation of one b. China Meera Setty. On 6-5-1976 Venugopala Swamy passed away. A samadhi was constructed in the place of Ashram which became a centre for pilgrimage, which is known as Sri Dattatreya Swamy Mandiram. A total area of three acres of land has been dedicated for the said purpose by the petitioner.

( 4 ) THE respondent by an order dated 30-5-78, appointed an Executive Officer for mis Sri Dattatreya Mandiram. Aggrieved by the appointment of an Executive officer to the Mandiram, petitioner filed a revision before the Government who dismissed the same, against which, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 531 / 1980. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence the Writ Appeal before us.

( 5 ) THE main contentions urged before the learned Single Judge were, firstly, that the Executive Officer was appointed without any notice to the petitioner and he was appointed as a hereditary trustee by order dated 29-3-79 and secondly as per sub-section 2 (a) of Section 27 of A. P. Charitable and Hindu religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966, in the case of any institution whose annual income is not less than rupees ten thousand but does not exceed rupees two lakhs, the Commissioner has only discretionary power to appoint an Executive Officer for such institution. The learned Single Judge rejected both the contentions holding mat Section 27 of Act, 1966 does not contemplate any notice to be issued to the hereditary trustee before an Executive Officer is appointed. Holding as above, the W. P. was dismissed.

( 6 ) SUBSEQUENT to the judgment of this Court dated 18-2-87 in the above W. P. , the 4th respondent issued Proceedings Re. No. A4 / 2517 / 87 dated 29-6-87 directing the Executive Officer of the Mandiram to take over charge of the temple from the petitioner, aggrieved by which, he has filed W. P. No. 10016 of 1987.

( 7 ) SINCE the Writ Petition was filed during the pendency of the Writ Appeal, both were heard together and disposed of.

( 8 ) THE main contention of Sri J. V. Suryanarayana is that Section 27 of the A. P. Charitable Hindu Religious and Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (hereinafter called the old Act ) provides that in the case of any charitable or religious institution or endowment whose annual income is not less than rupees ten thousand but does not exceed rupees two lakhs, the Commissioner may appoint an Executive Officer for such institution , whereas under the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter called as the new Act ) 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. Therefore, he contends that where the income of the temple is less man rupees fifty thousand, there is no provision for appointment of an executive officer. As such, the appointment made under the old Act will continue provided there is no inconsistency between the provisions of the old act and the new Act. Since there is no provision for appointment of an executive officer in respect of a temple whose income is less than rupees fi