1 HCJ &RRR,J W.A.No.847 of 2025 APHC010377392025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3446] THURSDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 847/2025 Between: Dr. KopalleHanumantha Rao, ...APPELLANT AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. V V N NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 2. PULIPATI RADHIKA 3. MALLAVOLU NIKITHA 2 HCJ &RRR,J W.A.No.847 of 2025 The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri V. Venugopala Rao, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mrs. Pulipaka Radhika, Ms.M.V. Ramana Kumari appearing for the respondents and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments. 2. Sri Kopalle Hanumantha Rao Panthulugaru, had established the Andhra Jatheeya Vidya Parishad in Machilipatnam, Krishna District for promoting Education, literacy and other Charitable objectives, in the year 1907. This institution was registered as a Society under the provisions of the Act XXI of 1860. This institution was registered under Section 7(b) of the Act 17 of 1996, on 10.05.1972. The administration of this institution has been with the Endowment Department. An Executive Officer was also appointed on 20.02.1988 to look afterthe affairs of the said institution. 3. A Committee, constituted under G.O.Ms.No.531, Revenue, dated 28.05.1987 had also conducted an enquiry into the functioning of this institution and a revitalization scheme, under G.O.Ms.No.655 Revenue (Endts.IV), dated 11.07.1990, was also approved, on the basis of the enquiry report of the said committee. 4. The appellant, who claims to be a member of the family of late Sri K. Hanumantha Rao Panthulugaru filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, on 23.08.1988, to recognize him as 3 HCJ &RRR,J W.A.No.847 of 2025 a member of the founder family in accordance with circular No.40/97 in Rc.No.L/36330/97, dated 04.10.1997. The Assistant Commissioner, after due enquiry, by proceedings in Rc.No.A2/10654/98, dated 26.01.1999, had recognized the appellant as a founder family member of the said institution. 5. A third party had filed a revision petition against the said recognition, before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Kakinada. Even while the revision petition was pending, and enquiry had been instituted against the appellant and the then Executive Officer, wherein four charges were framed against them. The Regional Joint Commissioner, Kakinada, on the ground that the appellant was facing disciplinary charges had held that the appellant cannot continue as founder family member and allowed the revision petition. An enquiry was conducted into the charges framed against the appellant, by the Regional Joint Commissioner, Kakinada and the charges were dropped. The Regional Joint Commissioner, Kakinada, by a letter, dated 12.03.2005, informed the appellant that he remains a founder family member as the disciplinary proceedings against him were closed. 6. The 4th respondent herein submitted a complaint against the appellant. In this complaint, allegations were made against the status of the appellant as a founder family member as well as his interference in the affairs of the institution and the financial misfeasance of the appellant in the institution. 4 HCJ &RRR,J W.A.No.847 of 2025 7. On the basis of this complaint, the 2nd respondent directed the 3rd respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry. At this stage, the appellant moved W.P.No.7251 of 2025 contending that such an enquiry is not permissible. The respondents took the stand that the enquiry was only a preliminary enquiry, for ascertaining the facts, and that no action is sought to be initiated against the appellant, at this stage. It was further submitted that any enquiry, that may be initiated against the appellant, on the basis of the preliminary enquiry, would be conducted strictly as per the procedure prescribed under the Endowments Act and principles of natural justice would be adhered to. However, the respondents took the view, in the counter affidavits, that the status of the appellant as founder family member is highly doubtful. 8. A learned Single Judge of this Court, after hearing both sides and the contentions raised above, had disposed of the Writ Petition, by an order dated 07.05.2025, contending that the authorities should act in accordance with law as per the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the A.P Charitable and Hindu Religious and Endowments Act, 1986. 9. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has moved the present Writ Appeal. 10. Sri V.V. Narayana Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that successive investigations and enquiries are being conducted against the appellant solely on account of his refusal to toe the line of the officials of the department. He would further submit that there can be no 5 HCJ &RRR,J W.A.No.847 of 2025 enquiry, by the Commissioner or any of the officials of the Endowment Department, in relation to his status as a member of the founder family inasmuch as such power is restricted to the Endowment Tribunal under Section 87(h) of the Endowments Act, 1987. 11. Sri V.V. Venugopala Rao, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent-institution contends that the appellant cannot claim to be a member of the founder family in view of the orders of the Regional Joint Commissioner, Kakinada, dated 27.05.2000, setting aside the recognition given by the Assistant Commissioner, to the appellant as a member of the founder family. He would submit that the appellant having filed a review against the said order and having filed in the review on account of the dismissal of the review petition, on 21.02.2006 cannot contend that he continues to be a member of the founder family. The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that the communication of the Regional Joint Commissioner, dated 12.03.2005, informing the appellant that he remains a founder family is solely without jurisdiction and cannot be acted upon till the order of the Regional Joint Commissioner, dated 27.05.2000, is not set aside. 12. Sri V. Venugopala Rao, the learned Senior Counsel seeks to draw our attention to the material placed along with the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. The learned Senior counsel, on the basis of the said material would contend that the appellant is not a member of the family of late Sri K. Hanumantha Rao Panthulugaru and as such, his claim to be a member 6 HCJ &RRR,J W.A.No.847 of 2025 of the founder family of the 5th respondent-institution is defective both on grounds of law as well as on facts. The learned Senior Counsel would also contend that there are various allegations of financial mismanagement and unauthorized alienation of properties of the 5th respondent-institution and the same require to be gone into. 13. Sri V.V. Narayana Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant, in reply would contend that the order of Regional Joint Commissioner, setting aside the recognition given by the Assistant Commissioner came to be passed only on the ground that the appellant was facing disciplinary proceedings. He would submit that once such disciplinary proceedings have been set aside, the very basis for the said order falls and consequently the communication of 12.03.2005 confirming his status of being a member of the founder family of the 5th respondent institution is a valid recognition, of his status. Apart from this, the learned counsel would also draw the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.186, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh nominating the board of trustees of the 5th respondent-institution. In this government order, the appellant is shown as the founder family member and is nominated, on that basis, as Chairman. The learned counsel would submit that in view of G.O.Ms.No.186, there can be no question raised against his status as member of the founder family of the 5th respondent-institution. 14. The contention of the appellant is that no enquiry can be conducted by the 3rd respondent either on the question of his status as the 7 HCJ &RRR,J W.A.No.847 of 2025 member of the founder family or on the allegations made against him, by the 4th respondent, in relation to the functioning of the 5th respondent-institution. 15. As far as allegations of financial mismanagement and other allegations relating to the functioning of the 5th respondent-institution is concerned, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interdict any such investigation, as long as such investigation/enquiry is strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Endowments Act, 1987 and the Rules made thereunder. This Court has also been informed that the 3rd respondent has completed the enquiry and the report is presently before the Commissioner, Endowments. In such circumstances, the Commissioner Endowments, may consider the said report, to the extent of the allegations relating to mismanagement and misfeasance of the appellant and to initiate such enquiry, as may be permissible under the provisions of the Endowments Act, 1987, if any material is available, for taking such a course of action. Needless to say, any such enquiry, would be a denovo enquiry, in which the appellant shall be given an opportunity of hearing and an opportunity to set out his case. 16. On the question of the status of the appellant as a member of the founder family, the only provision of the Endowments Act, 1987, where such an issue can be considered, is Section 87(h) of the Endowments Act, 1987. Under this provision, all or any disputes relating to the status of a person, as a member of the founder family, of any religious or Charitable Institutions, can be decided only by the Endowment Tribunal. In such circumstances, the 2nd 8 HCJ &RRR,J W.A.No.847 of 2025 respondent or the 3rd respondent, can at best approach the Endowment Tribunal for a decision on the status of the appellant as a member of the founder family of the 5th respondent-institution. Needless to say, even any person interested in the institution, may approach the Endowment Tribunal to give a quietus to this issue. 17. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ _______________________ DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J RJS 9 HCJ &RRR,J W.A.No.847 of 2025 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 847/2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Dated: 06 .11.2025 RJS