Chinni Subba Rao, the writ petitioner, filed the present writ petition praying for the issuance of a writ, order or direction one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent-the Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, in entertaining the representation of fourth respondent, Kotha Bala Veeraiah, as revision petition being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and further prayed for declaration that the proceedings in Memo No.36560/Endts IV(1)/2007-1 dated 12.07.2007 as illegal, arbitrary, void and to set aside the same and also pass such other suitable orders.

2. This Court issued rule nisi on 05.09.2007. Counter affidavits of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.4 had been filed. With the consent of the counsel on record, the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing.

3. Sri M. Radha Krishna, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the respective stands taken in the counter-affidavits of R1 to R3 and R4 as well and would maintain that the 4th respondent, a non party to the orders made by respondents 2 & 3 cannot file such representation and the first respondent cannot treat the same as revision petition. The learned counsel also would further submit that even otherwise when the leave is said to be pending, even prior to the granting of leave or obtaining of leave, the first respondent has no jurisdiction to make the impugned order. The learned counsel also would maintain that even otherwise as against the orders made by the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Multi Zone-Ii, Tirupathi straight away revision cannot be entertained by the first respondent, Government. The learned counsel also would maintain that this is not a case of suo moto excessive of power, but on application of a party, who is a non party to the proceedings before the Regional Joint Commissioner as well as Assistant Commissioner of Endowments-R2 & R3. Even otherwise, the impugned order also is in violation of the principles of natural justice since no opportunity had been given to the petitioner before making such an order. The learned counsel also would maintain that this is not a case where for the first time the rights of the petitioner are being recognized by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments had not passed any independent order and it is only recognizing the prior orders and hence would contend that the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments alone will have jurisdiction to make such an order also cannot be sustained. The learned counsel had taken this Court through the relevant provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (herein after referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) and also placed strong reliance on several decisions to substantiate his submissions.

4. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments had taken this Court through Section 87(1)(h) of the Act and would maintain that in the light of the said provision the question involved is to be decided by the competent authority i.e., the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments and hence, the order made by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments is wholly without jurisdiction, consequently, the order made even by the Regional Joint Commissioner Endowments purporting to exercise suo moto power also is invalid. When that being so, though a representation had been made by the fourth respondent in the light of the clear language of Section 93 of the Act, it has to be taken that the first respondent exercised suo moto powers and granted an order of stay, which is perfectly within the purview and jurisdiction of the first respondent and hence, the impugned order cannot be found fault in any one.