JUDGMENT :

Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

1. The appellants who are petitioners in the W.P. No. 12609 of 2021, aggrieved by the order dated 16.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, filed the present appeal on various grounds.

2. Heard Mr. M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. P. Rajani, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents.

3. The writ petition is filed seeking to declare proceedings in Rc. No. DPCELL/COE-25030(31)/15/2021, dated 12.06.2021 of the 2nd respondent and the proceedings dated 13.06.2021 of the 4th respondent, as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to the respondents to recognize the petitioners as permanent and temporary Peethadhipaths/Mathadhipaths respectively of Sri. Mad Virat Pothuluri Veera Bhrahmendra Swamy Mutt (hereinafter referred to as 'the Mutt'), Kandi Mallayapalli Village, Brahmamgari Matham Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District.

4. Through proceedings dated 12.06.2021, impugned in the writ petition, the 2nd respondent/Special Commissioner of Endowments, appointed the 4th respondent/Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Kadapa, as Fit person under Section 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and by proceedings dated 13.06.2021, the 4th respondent called upon the Manager of the Mutt to handover all the records of movable and immovable properties of the Mutt to him, with immediate effect, without fail.

5. It is contended before the learned Single Judge that the 2nd petitioner/2nd appellant is the widow of 11th Peethadhipathi of the said Mutt and the deceased Peethadhipathi nominated the 1st petitioner/1st appellant who is the son of the 2nd petitioner as his successor Peethadhipathi on 01.10.2010 and the said nomination was intimated to the Dharmika Parishad/3rd respondent. While stating that the Peethadhipathi passed away on 08.05.2021, it was submitted that the 1st petitioner had been nominated by the late Peethadhipathi as the person to be appointed as permanent Peethadhipathi through a Will executed on 10.11.2018 and that since the 1st petitioner was still a minor, as per the recitals in the Will, the 2nd petitioner would be a temporary Peethadhipathi till the 1st petitioner attains majority. It was agitated before the learned Single Judge that Section 52 of the Act, would apply only if there is a temporary vacancy or dispute in regard to right of succession in a temporary vacancy or where a Peethadhipathi is a minor and does not have a proper guardian. It was pointed out that none of such exigencies exist as the death of the Peethadhipathi has created a permanent vacancy and the 2nd petitioner would act on behalf of the 1st petitioner till he attains majority, and as per the language of the section, the dispute relating to succession would not be with regard to a permanent vacancy but relates to a temporary vacancy. It was also contended that the decision of Dharmika Parishad was not in terms of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Dharmika Parishad Rules, 2009 (for short 'the Rules') inasmuch as one of the members viz., the Executive Officer of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam did not sign the resolution by way of circulation and in the absence of the same, the requirement of a unanimous decision has not been complied with. It is further urged that the definition of Commissioner as set out in Section 2 (6) of the Act does not include a Special Commissioner and the order dated 12.06.2021, impugned in the writ petition, issued by the Special Commissioner purportedly on behalf of the Dharmika Parishad is not sustainable in law.

6. The learned Single Judge after considering the submissions and perusing the materials on record at Para No. 17 held as follows :

17. A perusal of the documents placed before the Court by the petitioners a