Date of reserved for orders Date of pronouncement Date of uploading APHC010348802023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE 13 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 17996/2023 BETWEEN: 1. KONDAGURUNADHA SWAMY TEMPLE, , REP. BY IT FIT PERSON, LAKKIREDDYRAMANA REDDY S/o. GANGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/o. RAVVARAM VILLAGE,NUZENDLAMANDAL, 2. LAKKIREDDYRAMANA REDDY, S/o. GANGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/o. RAVVARAM VILLAGE, NUZENDLAMANDAL, PALANAD DISTRICT 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, , GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT ENDOWMENT OFFICER, DEPARTMENT, NARASARAOPET, PALANADU DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NUZENDLA GROUP NUZENDLAMANDAL, PALANADUDISTRICT. Date of reserved for orders : 07.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 13.07.2026 : 15.07.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 13th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 17996/2023 KONDAGURUNADHA SWAMY TEMPLE, , REP. BY IT FIT PERSON, LAKKIREDDYRAMANA REDDY S/o. GANGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/o. RAVVARAM VILLAGE,NUZENDLAMANDAL, PALANAD DISTRICT. LAKKIREDDYRAMANA REDDY, S/o. GANGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/o. RAVVARAM VILLAGE, NUZENDLAMANDAL, PALANAD DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE COMMISSIONER ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, , GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT ENDOWMENT OFFICER, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, NARASARAOPET, PALANADU DISTRICT. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NUZENDLA GROUP- NUZENDLAMANDAL, PALANADUDISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3330] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO KONDAGURUNADHA SWAMY TEMPLE, , REP. BY IT FIT PERSON, LAKKIREDDYRAMANA REDDY S/o. GANGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/o. RAVVARAM LAKKIREDDYRAMANA REDDY, S/o. GANGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/o. RAVVARAM ...PETITIONER(S) THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, THE COMMISSIONER ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, , ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, NARASARAOPET, PALANADU DISTRICT. -I TEMPLES, ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the impugned Proceedings Rc.NoE2/COE- 15021/231/2022 dated 22-04-2023, on the file of the Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articleles 14, 21, 300A of the Constitution of India and Principles of natural Justice and to pass such orders. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “…..pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the impugned Proceedings Rc.No.E2/COE-15021/231/2022 dated 22.04.2023 on the file of the Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and to pass such orders….. 2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Fit Person under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short hereafter called as Act 30 of 1987) until a regular Trust Board is constituted, vide proceedings dated 14.02.1992. While so the 2nd respondent-Commissioner, through proceedings in Rc.No.E2/COE-15021/231/2022, dated 22.04.2023, appointed an Executive Officer. The appointment of Executive officer was under challenge before this Court, in the present Writ Petition, on the grounds that the temple was published under Section 6 (c)(ii) of Act 30 of 1987. The Andhra Pradesh Government vide notification dated 07.07.2023 has exempted certain charitable and religious institution from the operation of Section 29 of Act 30 of 1987 where the income is less than Rs.5,00,000/-, and the income of the subject institution is less than Rupees Five Lakhs and the petitioner was not put on notice before appointing the Executive 4 Officer. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 22.04.2023. And relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pavani Sridhara Rao, Appellant v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, Respondents, the relevant portion of the judgment is extracted: “the appointment of the Executive Officer by the Commissioner, such power had to be exercised on relevant data and on necessary facts and material. It could not be exercised just off hand without there being any necessity for appointing an Executive Officer for the temple in public interest. Nothing could be pointed out from the record of case by the learned counsel for the respondents as to why it was in the interest of public and for better management of the institution. Only on this short ground Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside appointment of the Executive Officer.” 4. The 2nd respondent-Commissioner filed the counter affidavit in denying all the contentions raised by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, inter alia it is stated that the present writ petition is filed on the ground that ‘no notice was issued to the petitioner before appointing the executive officer and the temple is not having the annual income exceeding Rs.5.00 lakhs’. Indeed, the Commissioner is having the power under Section 29 of the Act 30 of 1987, to appoint Executive Officer for the proper administration of the subject institution and for preservation of the properties of the institution or endowment or for the services of 5 safety of pilgrims to safeguard the valuable properties and to maintain temple records and to safeguard the objectives of the institution on better lines and relied on the judgment in AK Samajam v. Commissioner HR & CE reported in AIR 1971 SC 891 and Executive Officer, Group Temples Guntur v. Dasari Rama Rao and others reported in 1999 SCC Online A.P. 170, for the proposition that the power to appoint non- hereditary trustees or Executive Officers, where there is already hereditary trustee or trustees notwithstanding there is no mismanagement is only for the purpose of ensuring better and efficient administration and management of the institution or endowment. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri D. Krishna Murthy and learned Government Pleader Sri Nagaraju Naguru. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has reiterated facts stated in the affidavit and submit that the respondents have not issued any prior notice before appointing the Executive Officer, notification dated 07.07.2023 issued by the Government of A.P. has exempted certain charitable and religious institution from the operation of Section 29 of Act 30 of 1987 where the income is less than Rs.5,00,000/-, and the income of the subject institution is less than Rupees Five Lakhs and as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Pavani Sridhara Rao (referred supra-1) appointment of an Executive Officer by the Commissioner, should be exercised on relevant data and on necessary facts and material and not on offhand, that 6 no material is placed on record why it was in the interest of public and for better management of the institution, that an Executive Officer be appointed, hence, implored that the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that a committee was constituted and, following a site visit to the institution, submitted a report finding that the petitioner had mismanaged temple funds. The report further noted that the petitioner failed to maintain proper accounts or issue receipts, despite the temple generating an annual income of approximately Rs.10 lakhs. Additionally, the temple earns between Rs.2 and 3 lakhs during the Sivaratri and Maghapurnima festivals through temporary cloth hundis, yet the petitioner has failed to auction the license hold rights. Given these circumstances, the Commissioner, in the exercise of statutory powers vested under Section 29 of the Endowments Act, determined that the appointment of an Executive Officer is very much necessary for better administration of the subject temple and to safeguard the properties of the said temple and to set right the management of the temple by maintaining proper records duly keeping the administration of the subject temple with the Executive Officer of Nuzendla Group Temples, to discharge the duties duly safeguarding the objectives of the institution. 7 Hence, the learned Government Pleader would submit the judgment cited by the petitioner is not applicable to the present facts of the case and further stated a letter written by the petitioner to the endowment department was placed before this Court vide memo dated 06.07.2026.vide WP USR No.69019 / 2026 administration to the concerned organisation generates the annual income exceeding Rs.5.00 lakhs and therefore, the contention of the respondent that the income of the institution is less than Rs.5.00 lakhs is untenable and unsustainable and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. On perusal of the material available on record and oral contentions of both the counsel for the petitioner and respondents, the respondents have appointed a committee to conduct enquiry of the affairs of the temple. The committee has submitted a report that the writ petitioner has committed some irregularities. Hence, it is necessitated to appoint an Executive Officer in the light of the report submitted by the Committee. The contention of the writ petitioner is worthless and notice to be issued is liable to be fall down. And the other contention is that as per notification dated 07.07.2023 certain charitable and religious institutions were exempted from the operation of Section 29 of Act 30 of 1987 where the income is less than Rs.5,00,000/-. On careful perusal of the Memo dated 06.07.2020 filed by the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Endowment Department clearly demonstrates 8 that the subject institution generates annual income exceeding Rs.5.00 lakhs. Therefore, ensure that the reliance placed on the addressing a letter by petitioner dated 07.07.2023, that the subject institution fetches not less than Rs. 5,00,000/- 10. In the case of A.K. Samajam v. Commissioner HR & CE , (referred supra 2) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraph No.11 as follows “We have no hesitation in concurring with the decision of the High Court that restrictions which have been imposed by the provisions of the Act on the hereditary trustees are reasonable and are in the interest of the general public. The power to appoint non-hereditary trustees or Executive Officers, where there is already hereditary trustee or trustees notwithstanding there is no mismanagement is only for the purpose of ensuring better and efficient administration and management of the institution or endowment. Referring the judgments in A.K. Samajam v. Commissioner HR & CE case, (reported supra 2 ) a Division Bench of the common High Court Hyderabad the judgment in Executive Officer, Group Temples Guntur v. Dasari Rama Rao and others reported in 1999 SCC Online A.P. 170 held that : “In our view the argument advanced before us that unless there is mismanagement by Hereditary Trustee, the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner as the case may be, has no power to appoint an Executive Officer is totally merit less. Section 29 of the Act operates in totally different situation and if action is justified only under Section 29 of the 9 Act that a show-cause notice to the person-in-charge will be necessary.” 11. As established by the Apex Court, in Pavani Sridhara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (referred supra) relied by the petitioner’s counsel and the Dasaratha Rama Rao when mismanagement is identified, the Commissioner of Endowments is duty-bound to intervene and protect the institution's interests, with no requirement for prior notice. Furthermore, under Section 29 of Act 30 of 1987, the Commissioner is vested with broad powers to appoint an Executive Officer. In the present case, an inquiry concluded that the petitioner mismanaged funds; therefore, the petitioner's counsel’s argument regarding the necessity of notice is invalid. 12. The points that raised by the petitioner’s counsel are accordingly answered in negative and the writ petition sans merit and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. However, no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 13.07.2026 Harin Whether the order is: Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 10 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No.17996 of 2023 Date: 13-07-2026 Harin