B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in appointing the second respondent as Enquiry Officer to cause enquiry into the alleged mismanagement of the Andhra Jatiya Vidya parishad properties against the petitioner as arbitrary and without jurisdiction. ( 2 ) IT is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that Sri Andhra jatiya Vidya Parishad, Rajupet of machilipatnam town, Krishna District (for short the institution ) was established by the petitioner s late grand father Kopalle hanumantha Rao Panthulu nearly more than 6 decades back. The Institution was registered under Sec. 38 of the Act XVII of 1966 vide proceedings dated 10-5-1972 by the Asst. Commissioner, Endowments department, Machilipatnam. It is an educational Institution imparting education in several branches both technical and nontechnical. It is claimed that after the demise of the petitioner s grand father Kopallewari family members have associated themselves with the developmental activity of the institution and also donated huge extents of land for maintenance of the Institution. ( 3 ) THE Assistant Commissioner of endowments, Vijayawada after an enquiry recognized the petitioner as family member of the founder by proceedings dated 26-1-1999. It is claimed that by virtue of such recognition the petitioner was appointed as the Chairman of the Trust board of the said Institution. ( 4 ) THE fact remains that certain serious allegations of irregularities are made against the petitioner by the Commissioner, endowments Departments vide proceedings dated 28-2-2000. The petitioner is served with a notice, to which he is stated to have submitted his explanation in the month of March, 2000. The enquiry is pending before the Deputy Commissioner, endowments Department, Kakinada. ( 5 ) WHILE the matter stood thus, the petitioner is served with the impugned notice dated 21-9-2000 issued by the first respondent-District Collector appointing the District Revenue Officer, Krishna as enquiry Officer to cause inquiry into the"misappropriation and mismanagement of the Andhra ]ateeya Vidya Parishad properties". The case was directed to be posted on 29-9-2000 at 10-30 a. m. at Krishna collector s Office, Machilipatnam. Notices were accordingly directed to be served upon the petitioner and one Y. Kanakaraju. It is the said notice which is challenged in this writ petition. The case was directed to be posted on 29-9-2000 at 10-30 a. m. at Krishna collector s Office, Machilipatnam. Notices were accordingly directed to be served upon the petitioner and one Y. Kanakaraju. It is the said notice which is challenged in this writ petition. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is already facing an enquiry pursuant to the Memorandum of charges framed against him by the endowments Department. The Deputy commissioner, Endowments Department caused an enquiry into the matter. The district Collector has no authority in law to initiate any enquiry whatsoever against the petitioner in relation to the affairs of the institution. ( 7 ) IT appears that certain serious allegations are levelled against the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit filed by the District Collector, it is stated that inspite of repeated notices and summons, the petitioner did not care to attend the enquiry. Even the notices could not be served as they were being returned with the endorsement "refused returned". Public interest requires an enquiry into the matter is the submission made in the counter- affidavit. ( 8 ) LEARNED Government Pleader for revenue contends that the Collector is authorised to make an enquiry into any matter connected with the administration of the Revenue or into the conduct of any public servant as such or into any matter relatable to any of the entries enumerated in the list 11 in the Seventh Schedule to the constitution in exercise of the power conferred under Sec. 2 of the A. P. Revenue enquiries Act, 1893 (Act V of 1893 ). ( 9 ) IT would be appropriate to notice the relevant provision which reads as follows:"the Government, may, by order, invest any officer or authority deputed by them to make an enquiry into any matter connected with the administration of the Revenue or into the conduct of any Public Servant as such or into any matter relatable to any of the entries enumerated in the list 11 in the Seventh Schedule to the constitution with power to summon any person to appear before such officer or Authority or to produce any document or thing in the possession of under the control of such person, the production of which in the opinion of such Officer or Authority, is necessary to the conduct of such enquiry. Any officer or Authority making an enquiry under this Act may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the matter under enquiry or any fact relevant thereto and may reduce into writing any statement made by the person so examined. Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such matter put to him by such officer or authority, other than questions to answer to which would have to expose him to criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture. " ( 10 ) A plain reading of Sec. 2 of the Act would reveal that the power is conferred upon the Government to appoint any officer or Authority to make an enquiry into any matter connected with the administration of revenue or into the conduct of any Public Servant as such or into any matter relatable to any of the entries enumerated in the list 11 in the seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Such officer or authority appointed by the government is entitled to summon any person to appear before any such Officer or authority or to produce any document or thing in the possession or under the control of such person. Such Officer or Authority making an enquiry under the Act is entitled to record evidence orally and examine any person supposed to be acquainted with the matter under enquiry or any fact relevant thereto. Such statements may be reduced into writing. Such person who appeared before the Enquiry Officer are bound to answer truly all questions relating to such matter put to him by such Officer or authority other than the questions to answer to which would have to expose him a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture. ( 11 ) IT is clearly evident that the power to order an enquiry into the matter connected with the administration of Revenue or into the conduct of any public servant is conferred upon the Government and not upon the District Collector. It is not the case of the District Collector that he has been appointed as such by the Government to make an enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner in relation to the management of the Institution. It is not the case of the District Collector that he has been appointed as such by the Government to make an enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner in relation to the management of the Institution. The collector appointed the District Revenue officer to cause enquiry into "the misappropriation and mismanagement of the properties of Andhra Jateeya Vidya parishad" and accordingly authorised the district Revenue Officer to make an enquiry into matter. In my considered opinion, the appointment of the District Revenue Officer by the District Collector in purported exercise of the power under Sec. 2 of the Act is totally without jurisdiction. The Collector herein has no authority in law to make any enquiry into the affairs of the Institution in purported exercise of power conferred under Sec. 2 of the Act. Section 2 of the Act does not confer any jurisdiction upon the district Collector to make such enquiry. The district Collector, in the circumstances could not have appointed the District revenue Officer to make an enquiry into the matter in respect of which the District collector himself has no jurisdiction. ( 12 ) THE impugned order suffers from incurable legal infirmities and is one totally without jurisdiction. The same is accordingly set aside. Let a Writ of mandamus be issued. ( 13 ) THIS order however, shall not preclude any of the competent authority to make enquiry against the petitioner and into the affairs of the Institution. It shall be perfectly open to the Government to appoint an Officer to make an enquiry against the petitioner and into the affairs of the Institutions. This order also shall have no bearing whatsoever upon the enquiry already initiated against the petitioner and pending before the Deputy Commissioner, endowments, Kakinada. ( 14 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.