The court ruled that the Renovation Committee's composition without public opportunity violates principles of reasonableness and fiduciary duty under the Act.

1. This writ petition is filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing G.O.Rt.No.645, Revenue (Endowments.II) Department, dated 07.10.2021 constituting a Renovation Committee to the 3rd respondent temple by appointing respondent Nos.4 to 9 as its members, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners hail from the family of Beeram Chenna Reddy, who was principally responsible for construction of the 3rd respondent temple. The 3rd respondent temple is situated in the land admeasuring Ac.1.80 cents which belongs to Beeram Chenna Reddy and Acs.4.85 cents was also endowed by the son of said Beeram Chenna Reddy. The 3rd respondent temple was brought under S.6 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short "the Act"). As the income of the temple is more than Rs.1.00 crore, it has come under the jurisdiction of the Endowments Department and it is empowered to constitute a Board of Trustees under S.15 of the Act. The day to day activities and the amounts derived are being looked after by the Executive Officer of the temple. While so, all of a sudden, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.645, Revenue (Endowments. II) Department, dated 07.10.2021, constituting a Renovation Committee to the 3rd respondent temple by appointing respondent Nos.4 to 9 as its members, under S.146 of the Act for undertaking the reconstruction work of the temple, without giving any opportunity to the petitioners and the Beeram family who were associated with the temple in many of its activities, though the renovation work was undertaken by the Executive Officer of the temple by taking necessary permissions from the 2nd respondent and it reached the stage of completion. Obviously, no applications were called for from the public in general to be appointed as members of the Renovation Committee and only on a letter given by the 2nd respondent, the Renovation Committee was constituted. The impugned proceedings do not even satisfy the basic requirement as to whether respondent Nos.4 to 9 possess necessary qualifications under S.18 of the Act and do not come under the ambit of S.19 of the Act and do not speak about any enquiry conducted on the members to adjudicate their antecedents. The Renovation Committee was constituted as per the whims and fancies of the 1st respondent and the impugned G.O. was issued at the behest of a local public representative. The impugned G.O. also does not specify the term of the office of the Renovation Committee and it is ex - facie illegal. Hence the writ petition.

3. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made in the writ affidavit and stating that the Beeram family filed W.P.No.9501 f 2010 against the Endowments Department and the said writ petition was disposed f on 27.11.2013 by the learned single Judge extending the interim order already granted on 26.04.2010. The said direction was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 10.12.2013 in W.A.No.1890 of 2013. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent issued a notice calling for applications for constituting the Board of Trustees to the subject temple and in W.P.No.38096 of 2013 filed by one Beeram Janardhana Reddy, this Court suspended