Sri Bala Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Tallamudunurupadu Village of Tadepalligudem of West Godavari District (hereafter called, the subject temple) is the religious institution registered and classified under Section 6(b) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (the Act, for brevity). Historically, it is about 200 years old temple established by Sriman Raghavacharyulu, and statedly temple is being managed by his successors. After coming into force of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions (Amendment) Act, 2002 (A.P. Act No.27 of 2002), the respondent herein by proceedings in R.C.No.B5/2006, dated 17.06.2006, decided that Smt. Andal Raghavan – petitioner herein; is member of founder’s family. Be it noted, by reason of Section 17 of the Act as amended by Amendment Act No.27 of 2002, the member of the family of the founder shall be appointed as one of Board of Trustees and under Section 21(b) of the Act, such member shall be the Chairman of the Board of Trustees. That is the purport of Section 15 read with Sections 17 and 20 of the Act. The facts or the legal position are not disputed in this writ petition.

The respondent herein issued notice for the constitution of Board of Trustees vide R.C.No.B5/18976/2006 (Admn.) dated 14.12.2006 inviting applications in the prescribed Form-II of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987 under Section 17(3) of the Act. The applications were to be made within twenty (20) days from the date of issue of notice. This notice is assailed in the writ petition. The petitioner prays for a writ of Certiorari to quash the notice issued by the respondent. The petitioner alleges that her application under Section 154 of the Act seeking exemption from the operation of Section 15 of the Act is pending with the Government and pending decision, a Trust Board cannot be appointed. It is also the contention of the petitioner that in the earlier Notification, dated 10.10.2006, the respondent fairly mentioned that there is a hereditary trustee for the temple and the same was omitted in the impugned notice with a view to eliminate the petitioner from chairing the Board of Trustees, which is contrary to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Pannalal Bansilal v. State of A.P., AIR 1996 SC 1023. It is further contended by the petitioner that at the behest of the local M.L.A., who proposed seven persons of his choice to be appointed as Chairman and Members of the Trust Board, the notice was issued to exclude the petitioner.

At the stage of admission itself, the respondent filed counter affidavit. The following averments in the counter affidavit may be noticed. As per Section 17 of the Act, a founder or member of the founder’s family can be considered for being appointed as one of the trustees, but the member of founder’s family cannot be allowed to be represented through an agent or deputy. Initially, a notice was issued on 10.10.2006 inviting applications to constitute the Board of Trustees for the subject temple. By Orders, dated 27.10.2006 passed in W.P.No.22214 of 2006, the said notice was set aside by this Court giving liberty to the respondents to issue notice in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Though the petitioner made an application under Section 154 of the Act seeking exemption, the Government have not passed any interim orders prohibiting constitution of Trust Board and therefore, as required under Section 15(2) of the Act, action is initiated for constitution of Board of Trustees. Unless and until, a person claiming to be a member of the founder family is qualified for being appointed as one of the trustees, such person cannot enforce the right of being one of the trustees. There is no necessity to incorporate the status of the petitioner in the impugned notice. The allegation that notice was issued at the behest of the local M.L.A., is denied. No reply affidavit is fi