ORDER :

1. Sri. Vajragiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Timmacheruvu Village, Peddapappuru Mandal, Ananthapur District (herein referred as the Temple), is said to be an ancient temple, which was constructed a few centuries back. The petitioners claim that the said temple had become dilapidated and the family members of the 1st petitioner had renovated and developed the temple with their personal funds. The development made is said to be the construction of a Kalyana Mandapam, performance of cultural and religious activities at the time of festivals, a cement road from the base of the hill to the entrance of the temple on the hill, feeding the pilgrims who visit the temple on the occasion of Vysaka Sudda Pournami etc. It is further stated by the petitioners that the affairs of the temple were being managed by the father of the 1st petitioner since 1950 and thereafter by the 1st petitioner on the demise of his father in 1966. It is further submitted that with a view to offer better management of the temple, a society in the name and style of Sri. Vajragiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam Society was registered in 2016 and the said society has been managing the affairs of the temple, with the 1st petitioner as president.

2. The petitioners further state, in the writ petition, that due to political differences, the Member of the Legislative Assembly of Tadipatri constituency had pressurized the 3rd respondent to appoint the 4th respondent as an Executive Officer of this temple as a result of which the 3rd respondent by Memo No. A4/695/2021 Adm. dated 22.04.2021 had appointed the 4th respondent as the Executive Officer of the temple. The 4th respondent had taken custody of various articles of the deity on 14.05.2021 overawing the archakas who were present in the temple on that day. The petitioners had now approached this Court by way of the present writ petition for a declaration that the appointment of the 4th respondent as an Executive Officer of the temple by the 3rd respondent vide Memo No. A4/695/2021 Adm. dated 22.04.2021 is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

3. Sri. D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, apart from reiterating the contentions set out above, also raised the question of power and authority of the 3rd respondent to issue the impugned order. The learned counsel would point out that the temple, which is registered under Section 6(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘Endowments Act’) has an annual income of less than Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The authority who can appoint an Executive Officer to a temple, which has an annual income of less than Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) under Section 29 of the Endowments Act, is the Commissioner of Endowments only. This appointment is also to be made only after giving adequate reasons as, an Executive Officer, in the normal course of events, should not be appointed for a temple which has an annual income of less than Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The learned counsel submits that the 3rd respondent, who is an Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, does not have any such authority to appoint an Executive Officer to the temple.

4. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments has submitted written instructions issued by the 3rd respondent. In these instructions, the 3rd respondent has disputed and denied the assertions made by the petitioners in the writ petition and stated that the developments made in and around the temple were not with the contributions of the petitioners or the family of the 1st petitioner. It is stated in the instructions that these developments were made with the contributions obtained from the devotees of the temple. However, the assertion that the temple has an income of less than Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) is not disputed. The written instructions state that even though the appointing authority for such Executive Offic