The action of the respondents, in appointing the 2nd respondent as the Executive Officer of Sri Neela Kanteswara Swamy Temple, Yemmiganur village and Mandal, Kurnool District, vide proceedings dated 10.01.2014, is questioned in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary and illegal. The subject temple was registered under the provisions of the Madras Endowments Act 2 of 1927, and was declared thereunder as a “public religious endowment”. The petitioner was declared as the hereditary trustee of the subject temple, under Section 20(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious and Endowments Act 1966 (hereinafter called the 1966 Act), by proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Kurnool dated 25.09.1980; and was given the right to assume charge, as the hereditary trustee, in the line of succession of his late father.

2. It is the petitioner’s case that the subject temple was constructed around 200 years ago by the members of his family with their own personal funds; it was initially meant for the benefit of the family; it was later thrown open to the public; the original temple consisted of the principal deity i.e. Lord Shiva in the form of a sivalingam; it now consists of Ammavaru, Nandeeswara and Vinayaka idols; he has been spending his own money, as the expenditure incurred for the subject temple is much higher than the income derived from various properties belonging to it; their family members have been the hereditary trustees ever since 05.04.1935; from 25.09.1980 onwards he has been functioning as the hereditary trustee; the right of management of the subject temple, by the petitioner’s family, is undisturbed till date; their family has an unblemished record of service as it is they who had endowed valuable properties in favour of the temple for its benefit without depending on public funds; the income of the institution is less than the Rs.2,00,000/-; it, therefore, falls under Section 6(c) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter called the 1987 Act); in view of the proviso to Section 29 of the 1987 Act, an Executive Officer need not be appointed for the institution whose income is less than Rs.2,00,000/-; the 1st respondent appointed the 2nd respondent as the Executive Officer of the subject temple without any plausible or justifiable reason; an unsuccessful attempt was made earlier by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kurnool to appoint the very same person as the Executive Officer of the subject institution; this Court passed an interim order suspending operation of the said order; the present attempt by the Commissioner, to appoint the 2nd respondent as the Executive Officer, is with malafide intentions; the order of the Commissioner is in violation of principles of natural justice; neither has the petitioner been put on notice nor have reasons been assigned by the 1st respondent for appointing the 2nd respondent as the Executive Officer of the subject temple; though the impugned proceedings refers to the report of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, a copy thereof was not furnished to the petitioner nor was he made aware of its contents; the power conferred on the Commissioner to appoint an Executive Officer must be exercised on relevant facts and material, and not merely by referring to public interest; the discretion vested in the Commissioner, to appoint an Executive Officer, has to be judiciously exercised, and the person in management has to be put on notice; the 1st respondent, while exercising his powers to appoint an Executive Officer, should record reasons in writing for doing so; and, in the absence of such reasons being reflected in the order, the impugned proceedings must be held to be vitiated. Reliance is placed, on behalf of the petitioners, on P. Sridhara Rao v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1996 SC 1334);Executive Officer, T.G. Temples v. Gopal Irani ((1996 (1) ALD 187)and Sri Kommu Cheruvu Anjaneya Swamy