The appointment of a single trustee for a temple must comply with statutory procedures and requirements, including sufficient interest and time to manage the institution, as per the Act and its Rules.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief :

"......to or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in appointing the 5th respondent as a single trustee of the petitioner temple by proceedings RC No.A1/8877/2013 dated 08.08.2013 is illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India Consequently set aside the same and pass...."

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent in appointing the 5th respondent as a Single Trustee of the petitioner temple vide Proceeding Rc.No.A1/8877/2013 dated 08.08.2013. The petitioner's Great Grandfather by name Sri Chelakani Dhramrayanam was constructed the petitioner Temple. Being founder, he was continued as Managing Trustee. After demise of his great grandfather as a successor of the Founder Trustee of his grandfather, his father was appointed as a founder trustee. After demise of the petitioner's father his mother was looking after the affairs of the temple as a successor, now recently she was also died leaving behind the petitioner and his brother. Since his brother has no interest to continue as trustee he appointed the petitioner as managing trustee being successor of petitioner's mother. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, as the Archaka of the Temple trying to alienate the property of the petitioner temple, they have resisted by filing a suit in OS No.1088/2000 for permanent injunction which was decreed in favour of the temple. Questioning the said decree they preferred appeal which was rejected for want of pecuniary jurisdiction and same was carried to this Hon'ble Court by way of CRP which is pending. Inspite of injunction granted by the Competent Civil Court the petitioners are obstructing to cultivate the lands. Therefore, they filed EP No.125/2008 for arrest in violation of Court orders which was dismissed against which the petitioner filed CRP No.2180/2013. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent at the instigation of unsuccessful parties in civil litigation, has been initiated impugned proceedings, basing on the alleged report, submitted by the 4th respondent, vide Rc.No.A3/6493/2013 dated 27.07.2013 which was not known to the petitioner. It is further stated that the high handed action of the 3rd respondent in appointing the 5th respondent as a Single trustee of the petitioner temple amounts to termination of petitioner's successive founder trustee, it is utter violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and against principles of natural justice. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. The counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.3 denying the allegations made in the petition. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that, the petitioner cannot say that she is the hereditary trustee. She was never declared as a hereditary trustee to the temple at any point of time. Nor there was any entry in the property register indicating the existence of the hereditary trusteeship. The petitioner does not have any declaration as a founder family member. Even as per Section 17 of the A.P. Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987, the petitioner cannot be declared as a Founder Family Member since only the heir in agnatic line of succession has to be considered. In fact Sri Chelikani Dharma Rayanam was not the person who constructed the temple and the petitioners cannot claim that he is the founder of the temple. It is stated that, the single trustee appointed has taken o