ORDER :

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

1. The petitioner, by way of G.O. Ms. No. 252, dated 20.02.2020, was appointed as a member of the Trust Board of the 4th respondent-temple for a period of two (2) years with effect from the date of taking the oath of office. She took the oath of office on 05.03.2020 and was to be a member of the Trust Board till 04.03.2022.

2. The 1st respondent issued G.O. Rt. No. 255, dated 08.05.2021, removing the petitioner as member of the Trust Board and appointed the 5th respondent in her place as a member of the Trust Board. This order, said to have been issued under Section 17 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act'), does not contain any reasons for issuance of this order.

3. The petitioner aggrieved by G.O. Rt. No. 255, dated 08.05.2021 had approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that she was removed without any prior notice and without any opportunity of hearing being given to her. She also contends that she was removed for political reasons and political pressures, as no show cause notice was issued calling for explanation from her prior to her removal.

5. Notice was sent to the 5th respondent. However, the 5th respondent chose not to appear before this Court despite service of notice.

6. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments has produced written instructions from the 1st respondent.

7. The written instructions do not answer the charge of the petitioner that she was removed without any prior notice; without any opportunity being given to her to explain her case against any allegations that may have been made against her and without any reasons being set out in the impugned proceedings. No reasons for removal of the petitioner have been set out even in the written instructions.

8. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments would submit that Section 15(1)(i) of the Act states that the Government shall constitute Board of Trustees, who shall hold the office at its pleasure, except for founder family member or ex-officio member.

9. She would also rely upon the proviso to Section 17 (2) of the Endowment Act, which reads as follows:

"Provided that the Government may for good and sufficient reason in public interest remove a trustee from office before the expiry of the two year term".

10. She contends that in view of these two provisions, the appointment of any person, as a member of the Trust Board of the temple, would be at the pleasure of the Government and in view of this fact the removal of the petitioner would not require any reasons to be ascribed. The learned Government Pleader relies upon the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Nuthalapati Damodar Naidu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P. No. 19007 and 19035 of 2019) and a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Narain Agarwal and others vs. Nagar Palika Shahjahanpur, AIR (1993) SC 1440.

11. Sri G. Uma Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity of hearing and cannot be removed at the whims and fancies of the Government. He would further submit that even today the petitioner is not aware of the reasons for which her term has been reduced and why she had been removed.

Consideration of the Court:

12. The provisions relating to the present case are Section 15(1) (i) of the Act which reads as follows:

Appointment of Board of Trustees:-(1) In respect of a Charitable or Religious Institution or Endowment,-

(1) Where the income for the institution exceeds Rs. 20.00 crores (Rupees Twenty Crores) per annum, the Government shall constitute a Board of Trustees consisting of fifteen (15) persons at its pleasure except for founder family member and ex-officio members.

and the proviso to Section 17(2) which has been extracted above.

13. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments contends that when a person is appointed to a post to be held at the p