This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent - Commissioner of Endowments - dated 18.8.2008 as well as the order of the 4th respondent - Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur - dated 1.11.2008 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to hand over the management of the 5th respondent temple as he was declared as founder trustee of the said temple.

2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are as under:

3. By order dated 22.10.1981 in O.A.No.61 of 1980 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur, the petitioner's application made under Section 77 (1) (c) of the A.P. Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (Act 17 of 1966) for a declaration that he was the hereditary trustee of the 5th respondent temple was allowed and the said order became final. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was managing the affairs of the temple even after the enactment of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act No.30 of 1987). While so, a trustee was appointed in the year 1996 by the 4th respondent without issuing any notice to the petitioner and challenging the same the petitioner filed W.P.No.2517 of 1996. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court by order dated 19.4.1996 by setting aside the appointment of the trustee.

4. In the meanwhile the petitioner made an application before the 4th respondent to recognize him as a member of the founder family of the 5th respondent temple. Though the said request was rejected by the 4th respondent by order dated 7.2.2001 and the same was confirmed on Revision by the Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments, by order dated 13.12.2001, the 1st respondent - Government of A.P. vide order in G.O.Rt.No.1935, dated 5.9.2007 set aside both the said orders and held that the petitioner was entitled to the status of the founder family member. In pursuance thereof the petitioner made a representation requesting the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders in the light of G.O.Rt.No.1935, dated 5.9.2007 and to hand over the records of the 5th respondent temple. However, the 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 18.8.2008 directed that the petitioner shall continue to function as the founder trustee of the subject temple and the accounts shall be maintained by the Executive Officer/ Manager. Consequential proceedings dated 1.11.2008 were issued by the 4th respondent informing the petitioner that he was permitted "to continue to function as founder trustee duly obtaining founder trustee declaration orders from the competent authority as per the procedure". Aggrieved by the said orders dated 18.8.2008 and 1.11.2008 passed by the respondents 2 and 4 respectively, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 5th respondent temple stating that the petitioner's application to declare him as a member of the founder family was rejected by the 4th respondent since the petitioner had failed to prove that the temple was constructed by their ancestors with their own funds and also on the ground that the petitioner had acted detrimental to the interest of the institution by not maintaining the accounts properly and the temple was neglected completely. The Revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by order dated 13.12.2001. Though the said orders were set aside by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.1935, dated 5.9.2007, in view of the amendment to A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987) by the Amendment Act 27 of 2002 incorporating clause (h) to Section 87 (1), unless the petitioner was declared as a member of the family of the founder of the 5th respondent temple by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments as provided under Section 87 (1) (h) of the Act 30 of 1987, he cannot be permitted to act as a member of the founder family.