The court upheld the validity of the Deputy Commissioner's appointment of an Executive Officer under the Act, emphasizing adherence to statutory authority despite allegations of violation of natural justice principles.

JUDGMENT :

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

“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in RC No.B4/9499/2014 dated 25.08.2015 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments at Kakinada as illegal and contravention of the provisions of the Endowments Act and also in violation of principle of natural justice. Consequently set aside the proceedings in RC No.B4/9499/2014 dated 25.08.2015 issued by 3rd respondent.

This Court vide order dated 02.09.2015 while issuing notice before admission, has granted interim direction as under :

“…Any appointment of Executive Officer in pursuant to the order impugned shall abide the result of the writ petition.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is working as an Archaka in Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple, Vemagiri, by virtue of inheritance was appointed as single trustee to manage the affairs of the temple as per the provisions of the Endowment Act. The Commissioner has issued the proceedings under 4th proviso to Section 15(2) of the Endowment Act, as the income of the temple is below Rs.2 lakhs under the Act appointing the petitioner as single trustee to manage the affairs of the aforesaid temple in terms of the provisions of the act and the rules made under and was asked to take the charge of the accounts, records, valuables from Sri P. Adinarayana and submitted a report alongwith his specimen signatures to accord and restrict operation of Bank Accounts. The petitioner was held responsible for the proper administration of the temple and liable for any lapses. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted budget estimates from the year 2009 onwards and the same was approved by the competent authority without any allegations of mismanagement or another manner. In pursuance of managing the affairs of the institution, the petitioner has issued the notice to the existing tenants on 23.04.2015 to vacate the land of Acs.3.84 cents in Sy.No.275 which is owned by the temple as the lease period expired, in view of the circular instruction issued by the Joint Commissioner, dated 11.03.2015, and conduct a public action for the benefit of the institution.

3. While the matter stood thus, some of the tenants challenged this notice approaching the Hon’ble Court by way of filing WP No.14145/2014, WP No.14171/2015, WP No.18840/2015 and WP No.1415/2015 on various grounds for demanding them to vacate and handover the vacant land to enable the institution to conduct public the action to the benefit of institution. Petitioner believes that these tenants complained against alleging that he failed to discharge his duties which led to the issuance of impugned Proceedings No.B4/9499/2014, dated 25.08.2015 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada-3rd respondent, without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any notice. It is submitted that the petitioner was neither provided the copy of such allegations nor given an opportunity to submit an explanation, was asked to handover the charge for better management to the P.T.V. Satyanarayana Murthy, Executive Officer, Sri Chanda Choultry, Rajamahendravaram-5th respondent without stating the reasons for such handing over of the charge. Hence the present writ petition came to be filed.

4. The counter-affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent. While denying all the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, the roles of Archaka and Executive Officer are distinct. Sri V