ORDER :

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

1. The 2nd respondent issued a notification, dated 23.09.2019, under the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987 (for short 'the Trustees Rules') inviting applications, from interested persons, for appointment as Trustees of Sri Seetharama Swamy Temple, Moturu Village, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District (hereinafter referred to as the Temple). The petitioner states that he had submitted his application, along with others, for being appointed as a trustee. By proceedings in Rc. No. B2/COE-12026(31)/21/2020-B SEC-ENDOWMENTS, dated 09.11.2020 the 2nd respondent had constituted a Trust Board consisting of 7 members including the petitioner herein and respondent No. 4, who was appointed as the Chairman of the Trust Board, as he was a recognised founder family member.

2. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the appointment of the 4th respondent who is a founder family member of the Temple, as Trustee and Chairman of the Trust Board of the Temple, has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent was appointed as a Trustee and Chairman of the Trust Board, even though the 4th respondent had not made a formal application, in Form-II, under the Trustees Rules, for being appointed as a Trustee, and that his appointment is not permissible and is in violation of the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 (for short 'the Act') and the Trustees Rules.

4. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing the same. However, the fact that he had not given an application for being appointed as a Trustee is not disputed. The Association of Founders of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions of Andhra Pradesh had impleaded itself as the 5th respondent and filed a counter affidavit setting out the reasons why a member of the founder family need not apply under the Trustees Rules for being appointed as a member of the Trust Board.

5. Sri D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Andal Raghavan v. Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada, (2007) 5 ALD 661 : (2007) 4 ALT 509 to contend that even though the member of a founder family is entitled to be appointed as a Trustee and Chairman of the Trust Board, the said appointment can be made only in accordance with the Rules and the said rules require an application to be made in Form-II.

6. A learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in Andal Raghavan v. Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada, delivered on 26.03.2007, before the amendments made in Act 33 of 2007 came into force, had considered a similar issue. In this case, a person, recognised as a member of the family of the founder of a temple, had challenged the notification issued by the competent authority on various grounds, including the ground that a member of the family of the founder is entitled to be appointed as trustee and chairman of the Trust board even without applying in Form-II, set out in the Trustee Rules, 1987. The Learned Judge took the view that the earlier right of the hereditary trustees to be appointed as Trustees had been abolished by Section 16 of the Act and the right of such persons to be appointed as Trustee and Chairman of the Board, now flows from the provisions of Section 17 and 20 of the Act alone. As Section 17 (3) now prescribes the Trustees Rules, requiring an application to be made in Form-II, by all applicants, the members of the family of the founder of an Institution/temple cannot claim any exemption and cannot seek to be appointed as Trustees without making such applications.

7. It is the stand of the 2nd respondent in his counter affidavit that in view of the amendments carried out in Section 15(1) of the Act, the competent a