M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

1. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, counsel for petitioners; the learned Government Pleader for Endowments, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 7 in the Writ Petition and Smt. K. Lalitha, counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The parties are same in both the Writ petition and the Contempt case and with the consent of all the counsel, the Writ Petition and the Contempt case are being disposed of by this common order.

W.P. No. 26700 of 2014:

2. The 1st petitioner herein is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and was managing the affairs of the Balusulamma Thalli Temple located in Tadepallegudem. The 2nd petitioner is its General Secretary. The said temple is considered to be sacred by Rajaka caste people.

3. According to the petitioners, on 26.06.2014 the 7th respondent asked the 2nd petitioner to handover the keys of the temple and the iron safe where decorative articles of the deity were preserved and when the members of 1st petitioner refused to do so, it is alleged that he took away the keys forcibly. The members of petitioner-Committee then confronted the 7th respondent, who then was accompanied by 6th respondent, and the latter informed that he had been appointed as a single Trustee of 5th respondent. The petitioners claimed that they then obtained proceedings dt. 28.06.2014 in R.C. No. A4/2917/2014-1 of the 4th respondent, addressed to the District Audit Officer, State Audit Office, Eluru, West Godavari District. In that proceeding it is stated that the 5th respondent-temple had been published under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') and the District Audit Officer was directed to take necessary follow-up action. To this proceeding was enclosed proceedings in R.C. No. DP2/14935/2014 dt. 27.06.2014 of 2nd respondent informing the 4th respondent that 5th respondent-temple had been published under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act and the 2nd respondent directed him to register the 5th respondent-temple as required under Section 43 of the Act duly following the procedure prescribed therein.

4. The petitioners also came to know that the 3rd respondent issued proceedings in R.C. No. B1/5289/2014 dt. 01.07.2014 exercising powers vested in him under Section 15 of the Act (Amendment Act 33 of 2007) appointing the 6th respondent as a single Trustee to the 5th respondent-temple for a period of two years from the date of taking oath of office and secrecy as per the rules. In the said proceedings dt. 01.07.2014, the 3rd respondent directed the de facto managing Trustee, i.e., the petitioner-Committee to handover complete charge of the accounts and records of the temple to the newly appointed single Trustee at once.

5. The petitioners contended that the proceedings dt. 27.06.2014, 28.06.2014 and 01.07.2014 were issued by respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 3 respectively in gross violation of the provisions of the Act and the procedure laid down therein and, in fact, there was no registration of temple done under Sec. 43 till date. They, therefore, contended that the proceedings dt. 27.06.2014, 28.06.2014 are required to be set aside, and the appointment of 6th respondent as single Trustee vide proceedings dt. 1.7.2014 should also be set aside.

6. They contended that the respondents 5-7 denied them access to the deity and not allowed to take part in the activities performed in 5th respondent temple; that two priests from Brahmin community are in the temple and they are not permitting devotees to go near the goddess; a person claiming to be employee of the respondents from a nearby temple is forcing every devotee to pay money for breaking coconuts and take darshan of the goddess; offerings of brides and bridegrooms are being prevented unless they pay money; customary practices in the temple are being disrupted in this manner. They also alleged that the respondents are threatening to break open the Hundi mean