JUDGMENT :

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. By common order dated 12.11.2021, four writ petitions, viz. W.P. Nos. 17670 of 2013, 16796 of 2020, 21185 of 2020 and 2587 of 2021 were dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

2. W.A. No. 834 of 2021 arises out of W.P. No. 16796 of 2020 and W.A. No. 877 of 2021 arises out of W.P. No. 21185 of 2020. While no writ appeal has been filed in relation to W.P. No. 17670 of 2013, W.A. No. 829 of 2021 has been filed by the unsuccessful petitioners in W.P. No. 2587 of 2021. Though initially W.A. No. 829 of 2021 has been tagged with the present two appeals for joint hearing, as urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the said appeal requires to be heard separately owing to the nature of the issue involved therein, and therefore, the same was de-linked for independent hearing and the present two appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. W.P. No. 16796 of 2020 and 21185 of 2020 were filed by the appellants herein, namely; M. Penchala Swamy and M. Prem Sai, who claim to be hereditary barbers in Sri Penusila Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Penchalakona. In W.P. No. 16796 of 2020, they have questioned the action of the Devasthanam in not releasing the share remuneration of tonsuring tickets for the months of July and August, 2020 and in W.P. No. 21185 of 2020, the action of the Devasthanam in distributing the remuneration of Rs. 8,01,950/- for the months of July, 2020 to October, 2020 directly to the barbers working under the appellants, was questioned.

4. The learned single Judge observed that no clear or categorical material was made available to hold that M. Penchala Swamy has hereditary rights which have been recognized, nor was there any material to conclude that the other barbers who joined as respondents have also been rendering services either directly or through Mr. Penchala Swamy. Having observed so, the learned single Judge held that a Mandamus can be issued only when a right is established but neither of the parties was able to establish their rights conclusively. As serious disputed facts are involved, the learned single Judge held that the parties have to approach a competent Civil Court to establish their rights with proper pleadings and evidence and a writ petition is not a proper remedy and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petitions. Having dismissed the writ petitions which are the subject matter of the present appeals, for the reasons as noted above, the learned single Judge has issued certain directions regarding conduct of public auction in relation to the license rights of tonsuring and towards interim measure to be in force till such auction is conducted.

5. Mr. D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that in terms of Section 87(1)(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) the Endowments Tribunal is empowered to decide the subject dispute between the parties and as such, the bar under Section 151 of the Act to institute a civil suit would apply and therefore, the observation of the learned single Judge that the parties have to approach the Civil Court is not proper. He further submits that the appellants may be permitted to avail the remedy before the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87(1)(e) of the Act and till such time, the existing arrangement in relation to payment of tonsuring charges may be directed to be continued.

6. While disputing the claim of the appellants regarding hereditary rights, Ms. P. Rajani, learned Government Pleader for Endowments, expresses no objection for allowing the appellants to approach the Endowments Tribunal for redressal of their grievance. However, she objects to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to continuation of existing arrangement in the matter of payment of tonsuring charges. She draws the attention of the Court to the Circular bearing Rc. No. A1/99732/2018 dated 05.07.201