P. Naveen Rao, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Endowments and learned standing counsel for subject temple. With the consent of the learned counsels, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, his forefather by name, Balusu Venkaiah constructed Sri Ramalingeswara Swami Temple, Katavaram village, Seethanagaram mandal, East Godavari District in the year 1924 -25. The family members of the said B. Venkaiah were the trustees of the said temple. In terms of the declaration given in O.A. No. 8 of 1957, the grand father of the petitioner by name, Balusu Kesanna, was declared as hereditary trustee. Petitioner is the son of Balusu Ramalingeswara Rao, who is the 3rd son of hereditary trustee Balusu Kesanna. Another member of the family was declared as member of the founder family. He died on 12.04.2014. After his death, petitioner obtained no objection from the members of founder family and applied on 30.08.2014 to the Deputy Commissioner, Kakinada, requesting him to recognize and declare him as a member of the founder family of the 6th respondent temple. Strangely, the Assistant Commissioner vide his proceedings dated 14.05.2015 directed the petitioner to approach the Endowment Tribunal for declaration that he is a member of the founder family in accordance with Section 87(1)(h) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, Act, 1987). On 22.06.2015, letter of the Assistant Commissioner dated 03.06.2015 is served on the petitioner along with copy of the proceedings dated 28.5.2015 of the Deputy Commissioner appointing the Executive Officer of Sri Gandi Poshamma Ammavari Temple, Gonduru village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District as single trustee of 6th respondent and directed the petitioner to hand over charge of the temple. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner, dated 14.5.2015 directing the petitioner to approach the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, for declaration that he is a member of the founder family, petitioner filed W.P. No. 17226 of 2015, which case is disposed of separately. Aggrieved by the orders dated 28.5.2015 appointing the Executive Officer of 7th respondent temple as single trustee of the 6th respondent, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel by referring to the provision contained in Sections 15, 18, 19 and 29 of the Act contends that the Executive Officer of another temple cannot be appointed as a single trustee of the subject temple. Such action is ex facie illegal. He further contends that since the Executive officer of the 7th respondent is in regular employment, he cannot be appointed as single trustee of another temple and that is illegal. He further contends that 7th respondent cannot be expected to spare sufficient time and energy to attend to the work of the subject temple and, therefore, he is disqualified in terms of the Section 18(d) of the Act.;