The court affirmed that a recognized member of the founder family has the legal right to apply for trusteeship and must be considered in the appointment process.

ORDER :

Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same they are being taken up for disposal by way of this common order.

2. WP No.38685 of 2012 is filed seeking declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in issuing the impugned Notice Rc No.A4/29305/2012, dated 4.8.2012 without considering the petitioner’s request as illegal and arbitrary.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner and his forefathers are Maharajahs of Pithapuram Estate. They constructed and renewed temples and donated lands. As influential persons are trying to induct their persons into the temples as trustees, the petitioner made a Memorandum for trusteeship to the 2^nd respondent. But, as no action was taken by the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner has filed WP No.2123 of 2009 before this Court seeking to declare him as Founder Family Member/ Chairman of the Institutions established by his forefathers. During pendency of the said writ petition, the respondents removed one Executive Officer, who is conducting the Sri Samsthanam Choultry affairs promptly and brought the income more than Rs.15 lakhs and posted to Sri Kukkuteswara Swamy temple as Executive Officer and a person, who is related to the local MLA was given as additional charge of more than 8 Institutions and again to the same person the above Choultry was also given. Thus a person managing and who is In-charge of two or three institutions cannot concentrate on any of the institutions, who is also very much junior in service to the above said Chalapathi Rao, was again given the responsibilities of said Choultry, besides 8 other institutions as additional charge, clearly establishes the evil designs of the persons, who are having vested interests and siphoning off the funds of the Institution. Even though the petitioner made several representations to declare him as Founder Trustee/ Chairman to the Institutions (12) but the respondents have not taken any action. While so, as the Deputy Commissioner-3^rd respondent directed the petitioner to file separate applications for all the temples before the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Kakinada and the same are pending consideration. While so, the 2^nd respondent without giving any notice and without hearing the petitioner and also by ignoring his recognition as Founder Family Member to Sri Samsthanam Annadana Choultry at Pithapuram, E.G District, has issued impugned proceedings dated 4.8.2012 calling applications from interested persons for Trusteeship for the Trust Board to be constituted to the above Sri Samsthanam Choultry. Questioning the same the present writ petition came to be filed.

4. During pendency of the writ petition in WP No.38685 of 2012, the petitioner herein filed another WP No.1864 of 2022 questioning the proceedings of the Commissioner of Endowments, A.P., Vijayawada in K.Dis.NoB3/12024(31)/30/2021 dated 21.01.2022 appointing the respondents No.5 to 10 in WP No.1864 of 2022 as Trustees under sub Section 2 of Section 15 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 (for short “the Act”) to Sri Samsthanam Choultry, Pithapuram Town and Mandal, E.G. District by ignoring the right of the petitioner who is the member of the Founder’s family to the 2^nd respondent Choultry and on the strength of an incompetent authority issuing a notice in Form-I read with Rule 4(1) of g.O.M.No.258 dated 31.03.1988 contrary to the provisions of the Endowments Act.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2^nd respondent in WP No.38685 of 2012. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, the 2^nd respondent after following due procedure mentioned in the Act and the Rules thereunder has constituted a Trust