C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THE Executive Officer, Sri Vigneswara swamy Temple, Bhimavaram filed crl. M. P. No. 226 of 2003 before the magistrate under Section 133 of a. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (the act) to direct the petitioner to deliver possession of the records, accounts and properties of the temple to him. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in the said crl. M. P. No. 226 Of 2003. ( 2 ) BY the notification of R. C. No. J3/ 19299/2000 dated 02-11-2000 the commissioner of Endowments notified Sri vigneswara Swamy Temple, situated near sri Mavullamma Ammavari Temple as a religious institution under Section 6 (c) (ii) of the Act and consequently issued a notice dated 20-02-2001 to the petitioner in r. C. No. A2/3418/2000 to file an application for registration under Section 43 of the Act etc. Thereafter, by the proceedings in r. C. No. G1/54464/01 dated 07-11-2001 the commissioner appointed an Executive officer to the said Sri Vigneswara Swamy temple. Since the petitioner did not hand over charge and records etc. , as ex office holder to his successor, the Executive officer appointed by the Commissioner filed o. A. No. 56/2002 before the Deputy commissioner to issue a certificate under section 133 (2) (b) of the Act, who after issuing notice to the petitioner and after having heard both sides, granted a certificate under Section 133 (2) (b) of the Act to the Executive Officer. Questioning the said order petitioner filed W. P. No. 1675/ 2003 before this Court which was dismissed by a learned single Judge, by the order dated 29-01-2003, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner to the commissioner under Section 92 (1) of the act. Petitioner seems to have filed an appeal before the Commissioner. In the meanwhile, the Executive Officer filed Crl. M. P. No. 226 of 2003 before the Magistrate to enforce the order of the Deputy Commissioner under section 133 (2) (b) of the Act. Hence, this petition by the petitioner. Petitioner seems to have filed an appeal before the Commissioner. In the meanwhile, the Executive Officer filed Crl. M. P. No. 226 of 2003 before the Magistrate to enforce the order of the Deputy Commissioner under section 133 (2) (b) of the Act. Hence, this petition by the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since as per section 133 (2) (b) of the Act the application to the Magistrate has to be accompanied by a certificate issued by the commissioner receive the order so sent, Rule 3 of the rules enables the order being affixed on the outer door, or at any conspicuous place of his residence and such affixture shall be deemed to be sufficient service of notice to him. The certificate referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 133 of the Act, as per Rule 4 of the Rules, shall be in the form appended to the Rules. As per Rule 6 of the Rules the authority who inquired in the matter has to sign the certificate by duly affixing his official seal thereon. ( 4 ) SECTION 2 (6) of the Act defines the commissioner1 as"the Commissioner and the Additional commissioner appointed under sub- section (1) of Section 3 and includes every officer who for the time being exercises the powers and performs the functions of a Commissioner under this act or the rules made thereunder in respect of any charitable or religious institution or endowment as specified in sub-section (5) of Section 3. "section 3 (5) of the Act reads the Government may direct the commissioner, Additional commissioner, and every Regional joint Commissioner, Deputy commissioner or Assistant commissioner appointed under sub-section (1) to exercise the powers and perform the functions conferred on or entrusted to the Commissioner, additional Commissioner or Regional joint Commissioner, Deputy commissioner or Assistant commissioner, as the case may be, by or under this Act in respect of charitable or religious institutions or endowments. ( 5 ) SECTION 8 (4) of the Act vests the commissioner with power to delegate the functions entrusted to him except the functions to be performed by him by section 6 (1), 15,49, 51,66, 90, 92 and 132 of the Act to the Joint Commissioner, Deputy commissioner etc. ( 5 ) SECTION 8 (4) of the Act vests the commissioner with power to delegate the functions entrusted to him except the functions to be performed by him by section 6 (1), 15,49, 51,66, 90, 92 and 132 of the Act to the Joint Commissioner, Deputy commissioner etc. , Therefore, power vested in the Commissioner by Section 133 also can be delegated to the Deputy commissioner, by the Commissioner. Question whether the Commissioner in fact delegated the power under Section 133 to the Deputy Commissioner or not may not be very relevant for deciding this petition, because Section 3 (5) of the Act empowers the Government to direct the Additional commissioner etc. , to exercise and perform the functions conferred on the commissioner etc. , under the Act and since rule 6 of the Rules (framed by the government) referred to above, vests the authority who enquired into the matter to sign the certificate by duly affixing his official seal thereon. ( 6 ) THE enquiry in this case was conducted by the Deputy Commissioner of endowments and the certificate was also issued by him, which is strictly in accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules. From the order of the Deputy Commissioner it is seen that the petitioner was present before him at the time of enquiry. Therefore, it is clear that the procedure prescribed in the Act and the rules for obtaining a certificate under section 133 of the Act was followed by the first respondent. ( 7 ) THE fact that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner is not a ground for quashing the proceedings, more so because the Commissioner did not stay the order appealed against and since it is well known that appeal by itself does not operate as stay. ( 8 ) FROM V. Ramajogeswara Rao case (1 supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that the learned judge did not take into consideration the rules, especially Rule 6 of the Rules. So that decision is of no help in deciding this case. ( 9 ) HENCE, I find no merits in this petition and so the criminal petition is dismissed.