1. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur on 18.01.2012 appointing the third respondent herein as a single trustee to Sri Rukmini Sametha Pandurangaswamy Temple, Amaravathi. It is not in dispute that the third respondent is presently functioning as an Executive Officer of Sri Amareswara Swamy Temple, Amaravathi Town. It is stated that the father of the deponent of the affidavit, filed in support of this writ petition, namely Sri Venkata Naga Bhushanam, got constructed Sri Rukmini Sametha Pandurangaswamy Temple at Amaravathi in a site purchased by him somewhere in the year 1949-1950. Sri Naga Bhushanam has maintained and managed the affairs of the Temple as a founder trustee and after the demise of Sri Naga Bhushanam, it is the case of the deponent that he is managing the affairs of the temple with utmost dedication and devotion without giving any scope for complaints. It is also stated that Sri Rukmini Sametha Pandurangaswamy Temple at Amaravathi Town is one of the institutions which has been notified under Section 6-C of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, Act 30 of 1987 (henceforth referred to, for purposes of brevity as ‘the Act’). Since the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order on 18.01.2012, without inviting applications for constitution of board of trustees and without providing any opportunity to the writ petitioner for responding to any such notification for appointment as a trustee, being a member of the founders family, the present writ petition is instituted.

2. Heard Sri R.N. Hemendranath Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri V.T.M. Prasad on behalf of the third respondents.

3. Sri R.N. Hemendranath Reddy would point out that the institution is no doubt classified in terms of Section 6-C, but however, its income has crossed the limits of Rs.2.00 lakhs and consequently, the Deputy Commissioner for Endowments, Guntur has no competence to appoint a trustee to such a temple. Wherever the income of the temple has crossed Rs.2.00 lakhs, it is the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, who is the competent authority to constitute a board of trustees. Therefore for lack of competence itself, the impugned order dated 18.01.2012 should be quashed. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner would contend that, it is all because of hard-work put in by the deponent of the affidavit, the income of the temple has just increased nearly fivefold and when such good work is being done, by the members of the founder’s family, constituting a single trustee thus depriving an opportunity to serve the temple by anyone else including the members of the founder family is illegal. It was further contended that the third respondent is an employee of the Endowments Department. He is already functioning as an Executive Officer of Sri Amareswara Swamy Temple, Amaravathi Town. Therefore, choosing such a person for purposes of administering and managing the affairs of another temple is improper.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader would point out that, based upon the income of the institution which is available as per the records at the time of constitution of the trustees, the competence or otherwise of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur, in appointing a trustee to the temple in question should be decided. Since the deponent of the affidavit has not been recognized as a member belonging to the founders family so far, he could not have asked for preferential claim in the matter of appointment as a trustee to the temple. Above all, the learned Government Pleader would contend that the statute itself has conferred discretion on the Deputy Commissioner to constitute a single trustee and it is not necessary that there should be a multi-member board of trustees for each institution. Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned co