The petitioner is priest (Archaka) of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Devunipally village of Peddapally Mandal in Karimnagar District (the temple, for brevity). He filed the instant writ petition impeaching the letter/order, dated 13/14-10-2006 passed by the first respondent. By impugned order, while initiating disciplinary enquiry into the alleged misconduct of the petitioner, first respondent placed him under suspension.

The same is assailed mainly on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction. The petitioners father was Archaka of the temple by reason of appointment order, dated 13-2-1986, issued by the third respondent (Deputy Commissioner). After death of the father, the petitioner was allegedly appointed by the second respondent (Assistant Commissioner) vide proceedings, dated 16-7 -1993. The first respondent was appointed as Manager of the temple. He issued notice, dated 30-6-2006 proposing to conduct auction of the land in Survey Nos.283 and 661 situated at Andhugulapally, hamlet of Devunipally village belonging to the petitioner. He, therefore, filed W.P.No.14569 of 2006 and the same is pending. After filing the writ petition, first respondent dropped all the proceedings, However, first respondent issued notice on 28-9-2006 asking the petitioner to handover possession of lands in survey Nos.283 and 388. He again filed W.P.No.21426 of 2006. This Court dismissed the same observing that the temple has to take appropriate action either under A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (the Endowments Act, for brevity) or under A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. The petitioner alleges that first respondent is resorting to illegalities and the petitioner did not cooperate with him. For this reason, the first respondent issued impugned show cause notice framing charges without any jurisdiction.

2. At the stage of Admission itself, learned standing counsel for Endowments opposed the writ petition. A counter affidavit is filed by first respondent to the following effect. The writ petition is not maintainable as there is an effective alternative remedy under Section 37(3) (a) of the Endowments Act. The petitioner fraudulently sold land in survey No.283 belonging to the temple by tampering with the revenue records and also constructed house in survey No.388, which is the property of the temple. The first respondent has jurisdiction under Section 37(1) of the Endowments Act to take disciplinary action against the Archaka and also competent to place the Archaka under suspension, pending enquiry. The first respondent denied all other allegations.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Manager is not the trustee of the temple. When the ‘trustee’ as defined under Section 2(19) (sic. 2(29)) of the Endowments Act is conferred with power of suspension under Section 37(1) of the Endowments Act, the Manager cannot exercise such power. As per Section 11 read with Section 37 of the Endowments Act, it is only the second respondent, who is competent to initiate disciplinary action and place the Archaka under suspension, it is the Assistant Commissioner who is to take action against the petitioner. Per contra, learned standing counsel for first respondent submits that the Manager, in the absence of a non-hereditary trustee or hereditary trustee, has the power to appoint office holder and servant of temple and therefore, such Manager is also competent to take disciplinary action against such office holder/servant of the temple.

4. To appreciate the question of jurisdiction of a Manager of a temple to initiate enquiry and place the Archaka under suspension pending enquiry, a brief reference may be made to history of endowment law. Till A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious and Endowments Act, 1987 was enacted, the control of temple administration by the State was limited. By and large, hereditary trustee of temples, charitable institutions, mutts etc., were at the helm of affairs.