ORDER A short and interesting question as to the purport of sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short the Act) falls for consideration in this case. 2. The petitioner assails the order of the 1 5t respondent bearing RC. No. D/1 /17641 /06 dated 30-05-2006 whereby the order of the 2nd respondent dated 18-02-2006 has been declined confirmation by the 151 respondent and rejected. 3. The 2nd respondent, by the order dated 18-02-2006 in a.A.No.74 of 2005 declared the petitioner to be a grandson of Alaparthi Venkatachalam, the founder of Sri Alaparthamma Ammavari Temple, Allaparru village, Nagaram Mandai, Guntur district and therefore a member of the founders family. O.A. was allowed as was the claim for recognition as a member of the founders family. 4. By the impugned order, the 1st respondent recorded that the 2nd respondent had taken up O.A. No. 74 of 2005 for trial on several dates and finally on 18-02-2006 and after reserving for orders on 18-02-2006, orders were passed on the same day. The 15t respondent further held that it was mandatory for the 2nd respondent to seek confirmation by the 151 respondent, the orders passed by him, under Section 87 (3) of the Act and that the action of the 2nd respondent in communicating his order dated 18-02-2006 was an irregular act. The impugned order further records that the villagers of Allaparru had filed objections to the publication of the petitioners claim inviting objections on 05-09-2005 and requested an opportunity of being heard on the petitioners claim, but the 2nd respondent had determined the petitioners claim without hearing the villagers. For these reasons, the 1st respondent declined to accord confirmation and rejected the 2nd respondents decision declaring the petitioner as a member of the founders family of Sri Alaparthamma Ammavari Temple, Allaparru village. 5. The learned counsel of the petitioner Sri M. Vidyasagar contends that in view of the provisions of Section 87 (5) of the Act only a decision or order of the Deputy Commissioner (exercising power under Section 87 of the Act), determining that an institution or endowment is not a public institution or _ endowment, requires confirmation by the Commissioner as a condition precedent to its effectuation. Section 87 (5) of the Act reads as under: "Any decision or order of the Deputy Commissioner deciding whether an institution or endowment is not a public institution or endowment shall not take effect unless such decision or order is confirmed by an order of the Commissioner." 6. The impugned order of the 1st respondent sets out that an order of the 2nd respondent recognizing the petitioner as a member of the founders family being an order, referable to the 2nd respondents power, authority and jurisdiction under Section 87. (1)(h) of the Act, also requires confirmation by the 1st respondent in view of the provisions of Section 87 (3) of the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 87 of the Act reads as under: "Every decision or order of the Deputy Commissioner on confirmation by the Commissioner under this Section shall be published in the prescribed manner." 7. Sri M. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since in terms, sub-section (5) of Section 87 of the Act enacts the requirement of confirmation by the Commissioner of only order of the Deputy Commissioner that declares the public character of a charitable or religious institution or endowment, the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 87 of the Act which enact that every decision or order of the Deputy Commissioner shall be published only on its confirmation by the Commissioner, must be restrictively construed as a requirement of confirmation and eventual publication of only an order of the Deputy Commissioner that a charitable or religious institution or endowment is not a public institution or endowment and not every order of the Deputy Commissioner exercising power, authority or jurisdiction under Section 87 of the Act. 8. On behalf of the respondents, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments placed reliance on a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in P. Raja Lingam v. Commissioner of Endowments. -In Rajalingams case (supra), the relevant facts were that the petitioner filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (predecessor to the Act), Section 77 of the 1966 Act being substantially in pari materia with the provisions of Section 87 of the Act, for a declaration that a specified property does not belong to Tulja Bhavani Temple. The application of the petitioner - O.A.No.01 of 1996 - was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner on 26-04-2000. The order of the Deputy Commissioner was forwarded to the Commissioner for conformation. By the order impugned in that writ petition, the Commissioner for a de novo inquiry. Assailing the order of remand, the writ petition was instituted. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner therein that the provisions of subsection (5) of Section 87 of the Act which confer power on the Commissioner to grant (or to decline confirmation, as the case may be) an order declaring an Institution or endowment to be a public character, does not enable the Commissioner to remand the matter to the Deputy Commissioner. Learned single judge of this Court in Rajalingams case1 held: "A plain reading of sub-section (5) of Section 87 would show that the Commissioner may pass orders confirming the decision of the Deputy Commissioner. The power to confirm, as a necessary corollary, includes the power not to confirm. However, the legislature has not contemplated any situation where the Commissioner could modify the decision or remit back the matter to the Deputy Commissioner. This would be clear by comparing subsection (5) of Section 87 with subsection (1) of Section 92. The latter section confers the power on the Commissioner either to modify, annul, reverse or remit back for re-consideration to the lower authority." 9. Consequently, the order of the Commissioner remanding the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for a de novo inquiry was invalidated and the issue remitted back to the Commissioner to pass an appropriate order under Section 87 (5) of the Act. In the course of analysis of the provisions of Section 87 of the Act the learned single Judge observed: "Sub-section (5) of Section 87 of the 1987 Act stipulates that any decision of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 87 (1) of the 1987 Act shall not take effect unless the same is confirmed by an order of the Commissioner." 10. Sri Mr. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the aforesaid statement of the learned single Judge in paragraph NO.2 is at best an ex-cathedra statement, not amounting to a declaration of law that all decisions or every decision of the Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of powers under Section 87 (5) of the Act, require to be confirmed by the Commissioner. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the aforesaid statement of the learned single Judge in paragraph NO.2 is at best an ex-cathedra statement, not amounting to a declaration of law that all decisions or every decision of the Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of powers under Section 87 (5) of the Act, require to be confirmed by the Commissioner. Such intense analysis of the language employed by the learned single Judge in Rajalingams case (1 supra) is not compelling for adjudicating this case as the provision itself is clear and admits of no ambiguity. 11. It is contended by Sri M. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration of his theme that in terms, it is only the declaration of an institution or endowment to be not of a public character, exercising power under Section 87 (5) of the Act, which is to be confirmed and that the learned single Judge was in error in failing to notice the restrictive areas expressed in Section 87 (5) of the Act in respect of which alone a decision of the Deputy Commissioner needs to be confirmed by the Commissioner vide Section 87 (5) of the Act. 12. A detailed analysis of the above singular statement in the judgment in Rajalingams. case (1 supra) and in the context of the phraseology employed in sub-section (5) of Section 87 of the Act is not necessary for the purpose of this case. 13. Sub-section (3) of Section 87 of the Act in clear and categorical terms ordains that every decision or order of the Deputy Commissioner, on confirmation by the Commissioner, shall be published. The legislative phraseology is clear and admits of no ambiguity inviting purposive construction. There is some inelegance drafting subsection (3) of Section 87 of the Act, but no substantive ambiguity inviting a purposive interpretative process. 14. On a true and fair construction of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 87 of the Act, the inference is compelling that ever decision or order of a Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the power, authority and jurisdiction under Section 87 (1) of the Act requires a publication in the prescribed manner and the condition precedent for a publication is a confirmation by the Commissioner. The raison detre of this requirement appears to be that as a raft of powers are conferred on the Deputy Commissioner including declaration as to whether an institution or endowment is a public religious or charitable institution or endowment; whether any person if entitled by custom or otherwise to any honour, emoluments or perquisites in any charitable or religious institution or endowment and what the established usage of such institution or endowment is in regard to any other matter; whether any institution or endowment is wholly or partly of a secular or religious character and whether any property is given wholly or partly for secular or religious uses; whether any person has a rightful claim to being a member of the founders family; and other core areas of determination, of vital interest to the regulatory powers under the Act, the Legislature thought it appropriate to condition the initial exercise of power by the Deputy Commissioner by a supervening requirement of confirmation by the Commissioner to ensure an internal regularity and supervision over the exercise of statutory powers by the Deputy Commissioner concerned. 15. In the context of the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 87, the specification in sub-section (5) of Section 87 of the Act, that a decision or order that the Deputy Commissioner is deciding whether an institution or endowment is a public institution or endowment requires confirmation by the Commissioner must be considered an ex-abundant cautela enactment reiterating specifically and emphatically what already is enacted in sub-section (3) of Section 87 of the Act. It is a well established principle of statutory interpretation that legislature occasionally if not often employs ex-abundant cautela provisions either for emphasizing a particular mandate or to avoid occasions for disputation. Sub-section (5) of Section 87 of the Act is an illustration of such genre of legislative drafting. That is also a harmonious way of construction of the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 87 of the Act without doing violence to either. 16. For the aforesaid reasons and on the aforesaid analysis, the impugned order of the 1st respondent declining confirmation of the order of the 2nd respondent (declaring the petitioner to be a member of founders family) suffers from no inherent lack of incompetence or a jurisdictional error, warranting judicial ~view under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. 16. For the aforesaid reasons and on the aforesaid analysis, the impugned order of the 1st respondent declining confirmation of the order of the 2nd respondent (declaring the petitioner to be a member of founders family) suffers from no inherent lack of incompetence or a jurisdictional error, warranting judicial ~view under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. Sri M. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the 1st respondent was also erroneous on merits. He contended that no villagers had objected specifically to the petitioners recognition as a member of the founders family and that the order of the 2nd respondent was issued after rationally considering the objections on record. It is also contended that the petitioner is indisputably a member of the founders family and the order of the 1st respondent withholding confirmation was therefore arbitrary and irrational. Since the order of the 1st respondent has been principally impeached on the ground of inherent lack of competence qua the provisions of Section 87 (5) of the Act and since the Court hereinabove has found, on an interactive analysis of sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 87 of he Act, that the order of he the 1st respondent suffers from no infirmity on that count and since the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 88 of the Act to the District Judge, which is an appellate jurisdiction, wider than judicial review, this Court is not inclined to entertain the impeachment of the order of the 1st respondent on merits. The order is upheld on the limited ground of jurisdiction. The petitioner is at liberty to canvass the correctness of the order of the 1st respondent, on merits in the appellate forum that is available, in accordance with law. None of the observations in this judgment shall be construed as an expression by this Court on the merits that the 2nd respondents determination of the petitioner as a member of the founders family or on the merits of the 1st respondents rejection of the confirmation of that order, exercising the power under Section 87 (3) of the Act. The observations in this judgment are only in the context of determining the jurisdictional spectrum of the 1st respondent under Section 87 (3) of the Act. 18. The writ petition is disposed of as above. The observations in this judgment are only in the context of determining the jurisdictional spectrum of the 1st respondent under Section 87 (3) of the Act. 18. The writ petition is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs.