ORDER :-Heard Sri M Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments representing respondents 1, 3 and 4 and Sri Saratkumar, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 2 and 5.

2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring action of the first respondent i.e., the Commissioner of Endowments, in passing the impugned order in L.Dis.No.Gl/13408/05, dated 16.7.2005, as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law and contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court and pass such other suitable orders.

3. The order impugned in the present writ petition reads as hereunder:

Office of the Commissioner,

Endowments Department, A.P., Hyderabad.

L.Dis.No.Gl/13408/05, dated 16.7.2005.

Sub:- Endowments Department-Representation of Sri G. Govindacharyulu, Founder Trustee, Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Nampally (V), Vemulawada (M), Declaration of his son as Founder Trustee- Rejected- Reg.

Ref:-RC No.A2/2581/C04, dated 19.3.2005 from the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Warangal.

xx xx

Attention of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Warangal is invited to the reference cited and he is informed that Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Nampally (V), Vemulawada (M), was adopted by Sri Raja Rajeswara Swamy Devasthanam, Vemulawada. After adoption, the institution shall be deemed to comprise a single institution only for the purpose of administration as tripiluted under Section 145 of the Act. So there cannot be a founder trustee separately to Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Nampally (V) which is adopted by Sri Raja Rajeswara Swamy Devasthanam, Vemulawada managed by the Executive Officer of Regional Joint Commissioner cadre, the Deputy Commissioner is requested to inform the applicant accordingly.

(By order of the Commissioner)

Sd/- K. Sivaram Sharma Deputy Commissioner (G)

4. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner Sri Vidya Sagar would maintain that the impugned order cannot be sustained since hereditary rights cannot be affected by virtue of an action taken under Section 145 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience). The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and would maintain that there is no dispute or controversy that the petitioner belongs to founder family. When that being so, the question of approaching concerned Deputy Commissioner of Endowments under:-

Section 87(1)(h) of the Act would not arise. The Counsel also would submit that the stand taken in the counter-affidavit relating to relinquishment of hereditary rights also cannot be a sustainable stand. While making elaborate submissions the learned Counsel would contend that such hereditary rights, which had been protected, at least to the limited extent, by the provisions of the Act, cannot be defeated. By giving such an interpretation to Section 145 of the Act, it cannot be taken as though these rights are extinguished by virtue of amalgamation and, hence, the right of the petitioner as a successor of the family of founder of the institution may have to be declared and at appropriate stage the case of the petitioner to be considered. Even otherwise, the learned Counsel would submit that the way in which the order is made and the nature of the order if carefully scrutinized the same cannot be sustained and the whole issue to be reconsidered.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments had taken this Court through sub-section (2) of Section 145 of the Act in particular and would maintain that in the light of the clear language employed in sub-section (2) of Section 145 of the Act, after amalgamation of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Nampally Village, Vemulawada Mandal, Karimnagar District with Sri Raja Rajeswara Swamy Devastanam, Vemulawada it is to be treated as single institution

Click Here to Read the rest of this document