This Court issued Rule Nisi on 24.2.2006 and made the following order in WPMP No.4397 of 2006:

The petitioner claims to have legitimate rights to be recognized him, as founder family member of Sri Kanakalingeswara Swamy Van Temple, Atapaka, Kailakuru Mandal, Krishna District. The third respondent submitted an application to the first respondent seeking his recognition as a member of the founder's family. By the impugned proceedings dated 15.2.2006, the first respondent recognized the third respondent as a member of the founder's family on the ground that he belongs to the fifth generation of the founder's family as against the petitioner, who is recorded as belonging to the sixth generation.

The petitioner's complaint inter alia is that the first respondent is incompetent to exercise the powers or jurisdiction to resolve disputes as to the claims to being a member of the founder's family.

Prima facie, Section 27(h) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act') introduced by the Amending Act 27 of 2002 w.e.f, 26.8.2002, consecrates the power of adjudicating disputes as to a member of the founder's family of an institution of endowments to the Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction and in accordance with the procedure ordained in the provisions of the Act, in particular Section 87 of the Act. The first respondent is thus and prima facie seen to be incompetent to have adjudicated the dispute between the third respondent and the petitioner to the claim of being the member of the founder's family.

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 15.2.2006 bearing reference D.Dis.No.A5/308/2006 Admn. Dated 15.2.2006 is suspended. Notice.

2. WVMP No.704 of 2006 is filed by the vacate stay petitioner-R3 to vacate the interim stay made in WPMP No.4397 of 2006 in WP No.3532 of 2006, dated 24.2.2006.

3. The Counsel on record made a request to dispose of the writ petition itself final1y and at their request the writ petition is being disposed of final1y.

4. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the petitioner as the Founder Family Member of the second respondent-temple by declaring the proceedings of the first respondent in D.Dis.No.A5/308/2006, Admn., dated 15.2.2006 as arbitrary, i11egal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, apart from the same being contrary to Section 87(1)(h) of the Act 30 of 87 and to pass such other suitable orders.

5. It is stated by the writ petitioner that his great grand father late Banda Surapuraju constructed the second respondent-temple about 175 years back and had managed the same during his life time.

He had also donated 21.49 acres of land for maintenance of the temple. As per the practice and the arrangement made, the eldest member of the family was managing the temple although. The petitioner belongs to the first son's genealogy branch of the founder of the temple and whereas the third respondent belongs to the fourth son's branch of the genealogy of the founder of the temple. The temple is categorized as and published under Section 6( c )(ii) of the Endowments Act i.e., Act 30 of 87 and is under the administrative control of the first respondent.

6. While so, the petitioner had made an application dated 10.1.2006 and 7.2.2006 before the first respondent to recognize him as the founder family member for managing the temple. The third respondent also made similar application dated 2.1.2006 to recognize him as the founder family member for managing the temple. Both of them were asked by the first respondent to produce the documentary evidence to establish their right for recognition as founder family member. Both have submitted their documents including the genealogy tree to show their status. According to the petitioner, the third respondent rival claimant is much younger to the petitioner. However, the first respondent without looking at the evidence properly held that the p