JUDGMENT : The order under challenge in this writ petition is the proceedings of the 1st respondent, in Memo No. 45189/End. IV.2/09-1 dated 15.09.2009 (15.10.2009), as being contrary to law, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 2. Sri Vengamamba Perantalu Temple, situated within the limits of Narrawada Gram Panchayat, Duttalur Mandal, Nellore District, has been notified under Section 6 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act No.30 of 1987). The 4th respondent herein is the Managing Trustee of the said temple. On receipt of information, that the 4th respondent had allegedly committed grave and serious irregularities, the 3rd respondent was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into these allegations. Charges were framed against the 4th respondent and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that all the charges were proved. The 3rd respondent issued a notice to the 4th respondent and, thereafter, passed final orders under Section 28(1)(a)&(b) of Act 30 of 1987 on 03.12.2003 disqualifying him as a trustee of the temple. The 4th respondent filed R.P. No.4 of 2005 before the Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments, questioning the order of disqualification passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments. The Regional Joint Commissioner, by order dated 08.03.2006, allowed the Revision petition and remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments for fresh enquiry. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Regional Joint Commissioner dated 08.03.2006, the petitioner filed W.P. No.11469 of 2006 and the 4th respondent herein filed W.P. No.11969 of 2006. This Court, by a common order dated 20.06.2006, disposed off both the writ petitions observing that, as on the date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings and conducting enquiry, the temple was under Section 6(b) category for which the Deputy Commissioner was the competent authority; and, before final orders could be passed, the temple was re-classified as a Section 6(a) temple for which the Commissioner of Endowments was the competent authority. This Court directed the Commissioner of Endowments to conclude the enquiry held against the 4th respondent herein and, thereafter, pass appropriate orders. The Commissioner, after furnishing a copy of the enquiry report and calling upon the 4th respondent to submit his objections thereto, considered the material on record and passed orders on 19.09.2006, under Section 28 of the Act, disqualifying the 4th respondent as a trustee of the temple. The Commissioner, after furnishing a copy of the enquiry report and calling upon the 4th respondent to submit his objections thereto, considered the material on record and passed orders on 19.09.2006, under Section 28 of the Act, disqualifying the 4th respondent as a trustee of the temple. The 4th respondent approached the Government questioning the order of the Commissioner dated 19.09.2009. The 1st respondent, in turn, issued Memo dated 15.09.2009 (15.10.2009) suspending the order of the Commissioner dated 19.09.2009. The 1st respondent also directed maintenance of status quo as on 19.09.2009. Aggrieved by the said order of the Government, suspending the order of the Commissioner, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The petitioner would contend that, though he had filed a caveat, the 1st respondent did not issue any prior notice either to him or to his Counsel before passing the ex parte interim order. In his Counter affidavit, the 4th respondent would submit that the 2nd respondent suffered from inherent lack of jurisdiction to pass the impugned order as Act 33 of 2007 conferred power on the Dharmika Parishad to pass an order disqualifying a trustee, of a Section 6(a) temple whose income exceeded Rs.25 lakhs per annum, from holding office. The 4th respondent would further submit that he had filed an appeal under Section 90 of the Act and the Government had the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. He would deny that he had filed a Revision Petition under Section 93 of the Act. In his counter-affidavit the 5th respondent states that the income of the temple, for the year 2008-2009, was 98 lakhs and that the Government had entertained the Revision under Section 93 of Act 30 of 1987. 5. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would refer in detail to the order of the Commissioner of Endowments dated 19.09.2009 in support of his submission that the 4th respondent herein had committed grave and serious irregularities. 5. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would refer in detail to the order of the Commissioner of Endowments dated 19.09.2009 in support of his submission that the 4th respondent herein had committed grave and serious irregularities. Learned Counsel would submit that, as these grave and serious acts of corruption were held established the impugned interim order passed by the 1st respondent, suspending the order of the Commissioner, was wholly unjustified in as much as it had the effect of continuing a corrupt Trustee in the management of a Section 6(a) temple; Sections 15 and 28 of Act 30 of 1987, as subsequently amended by Act 33 of 2007, conferring jurisdiction on the Dharmika Parishad to remove the Trustee of a Section 6(a) temple from office, had no application; this Court had directed the Commissioner to enquire and pass orders; the order passed by this Court, in W.P. No.11469 and 11969 of 2006 dated 20.06.2006, could not be set at naught by an amendment of the Legislation; and, while the legislature could remove the basis of a judgment of this Court, it could not overrule the judgment. 6. Sri M. Vidyasagar, learned Counsel for the 4th respondent, would contend that, while the competent authority to take action against the trustee of a Section 6(a) temple, when this Court passed the order in W.P. No. 11469 & 11969 of 2006 dated 20.06.2006 was the Commissioner, Sections 15 and 28 of Act 30 of 1987 were amended by Act 33 of 2007, which came into force on 03.01.2008, and, for institutions classified under Section 6(a) whose annual income exceeded Rs.25 lakhs, the power which was hitherto vested in the Commissioner is now vested in the Dharmika Parishad. Learned Counsel would submit that, since the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction when the order dated 19.09.2009 was passed, the 1st respondent was justified in suspending the said order. Learned Counsel would submit that the circumstances which existed when the order was passed by this Court no longer exists; the basis of the judgment has been removed by amendment Act 33 of 2007; the power to take action is now vested with the Dharmika parishad; the order of the Commissioner disqualifying the 4th respondent as a trustee was without jurisdiction; and, in such circumstances, the 1st respondent was justified in suspending the order of the Commissioner. 7. 7. It is not in dispute that when this Court passed the order, in W.P. No.11469 and 11969 of 2006, on 20.06.2006 it was the Commissioner of Endowments who was competent to disqualify a trustee, of a Section 6(a) temple, from holding office. As a result of Act 30 of 1987 being amended by Act 33 of 2007, which came into force with effect from 03.01.2008, the power which was hitherto vested in the Commissioner is now conferred, with regards a Section 6(a) institution having an annual income between Rs.25 lakhs to Rs.1.00 crore, on the Dharmika parishad. It is no doubt true that, on the date on which the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner of Endowments dated 19.09.2009, it was the Dharmika parishad which, under the amended Act 30 of 1987, was the competent authority to take action against the trustee of a Section 6(a) temple whose annual income was between Rs.25 lakhs and Rs.1 crore. 8. The question which would, therefore, necessitate examination is whether a subsequent amendment of Act 30 of 1987, by Act 33 of 2007, can set at naught the earlier judgment of this Court, in W.P. No.11469 and 11969 of 2006 dated 20.06.2006, more so when Act 33 of 2007 has not been brought into force retrospectively from a date anterior to the date of the judgment aforementioned. 9. In its Order, in W.P. No.11469 and 11969 of 2006 dated 20.06.2006, this Court, having regard to the gravity of the allegations made against the 4th respondent herein, directed the Commissioner of Endowments to consider, if the circumstances justified, initiating an enquiry into the charges earlier levelled against the 4th respondent herein by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments. The Commissioner of Endowments was also directed to consider, within three days of receipt of a copy of the order, whether there was prima facie material against the 4th respondent warranting ad-interim orders being passed under Section 28 of the Act. This Court further directed the Commissioner to conclude the enquiry, against the 4th respondent herein, within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. This Court made it clear that, irrespective of whether there was a change in the incumbency of the Commissioner’s office, the time frame prescribed in the order for completion of the enquiry was inflexible and should be completed without fail or demur. 10. This Court made it clear that, irrespective of whether there was a change in the incumbency of the Commissioner’s office, the time frame prescribed in the order for completion of the enquiry was inflexible and should be completed without fail or demur. 10. It is not as if this Court had merely quashed the order passed earlier by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments on the ground that it was the Commissioner who was the competent authority. This Court further directed the Commissioner of Endowments to take necessary action within the time frame specified in the order. The petitioner and the 4th respondent herein were parties to the earlier Writ proceedings. It is evident from the order itself that the Commissioner of Endowments was impleaded as a respondent in both the writ petitions on 20.06.2006. The aforementioned judgment inter-parties has attained finality and is binding on all the parties thereto. An order, passed after a hearing on merits, must bind the parties till set aside in appeal or revision. (Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association Vs. State of Maharashtra ( 1990(2) SCC 715 ); UPSRTC Vs. State of U.P. ( 2005(1) SCC 444 ). In other words, either of the parties will not be permitted to reopen the issue decided by such a decision. (Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association Vs. Union of India ((AIR (1990 SC 334)). Issues which have been concluded inter-parties cannot be raised again in proceedings inter-parties. (State of Haryana Vs. State of Punjab ( 2004(12) SCC 673 ) 11. As the Commissioner of Endowments was directed by this Court to conduct an enquiry, it is not now open to the 4th respondent to contend that the subsequent amendment of Act 30 of 1987, by Act 33 of 2007 with effect from 03.01.2008, would render the order of the Commissioner dated 19.9.2009 without jurisdiction, more so as Act 33 of 2007 was not given retrospective operation from a date prior to the date of the judgment of this Court i.e., 20.6.2006. The Legislature cannot overrule a judicial decision. It can, however, remove the substratum or the foundation of the judgment by a retrospective amendment of the legal provision concerned. (K. Sankaran Nair v. Devaki Amma Malathy Amma( (1996) (11 SCC 428)). The Legislature cannot overrule a judicial decision. It can, however, remove the substratum or the foundation of the judgment by a retrospective amendment of the legal provision concerned. (K. Sankaran Nair v. Devaki Amma Malathy Amma( (1996) (11 SCC 428)). In the absence of such a legislative exercise, by a competent legislature, the attempt to upset the binding effect of judgments rendered against the parties would remain an incompetent and forbidden exercise which can be dubbed as an abortive attempt to legislatively overrule binding decisions of Courts. (K. Sankaran Nair v. Devaki Amma Malathy Amma; Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union of India ( (1996) 11 SCC 428 )) 12. No Legislature in this country has the power to ask the Executive to disobey or disregard the decisions given by Courts. (Municipal Corpn. of the City of Ahmedabad v. New Shrock Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd ( (1970) 2 SCC 280 ) A judicial decision, which has become final inter partes, cannot be set at naught by legislative action. (S.R. Bhagawat v. State of Mysore ( (1995) 6 SCC 16 ) National Agricultural Coop. Marketing Federation of India Ltd. v. Union of India (2003) 5 SCC 23 ). The legislature can change the basis on which a decision is given by the Court, and thus change the law in general, which will affect a class of persons and events at large. It cannot, however, set aside an individual decision inter-parties and affect their rights and liabilities alone. Such an act on the part of the legislature amounts to exercising the judicial power of the State and to function as an appellate court or tribunal. Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, In re (1993 Supp (1) SCC 645). The contention of Sri M. Vidyasagar, learned Counsel for the 4th respondent, that the order of the Commissioner dated 19.09.2009 is without jurisdiction, must therefore fail. 13. Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, In re (1993 Supp (1) SCC 645). The contention of Sri M. Vidyasagar, learned Counsel for the 4th respondent, that the order of the Commissioner dated 19.09.2009 is without jurisdiction, must therefore fail. 13. In his order dated 19.09.2009, the 2nd respondent Commissioner of Endowments notes that among the charges held proved against the 4th respondent were that he had spent Rs.47,500/- towards Kalakshepam for the year 2001-2002 without prior sanction of the competent authority; had spent Rs.12,06,410/-towards Thirunallu expenditure for the year 2001-2002 without getting prior sanction and the actual expenditure incurred during the year under Tirunallu was more than double the previous budget sanction; had failed to obtain sanction for incurring expenditure of Rs.41,040/- for the Arch work; had failed to get the estimates sanctioned for providing cement concrete flooring at Vaddepalem, had incurred Rs.1,00,600/-and had failed to value the same; had failed to call for tenders for electric decoration during Brahmotsavam and had incurred Rs.4,07,260/- for the year 2001-2002 without sanction; had failed to call for tenders for supply of gravel and had incurred Rs.1,80,744/- for the year 2001-2002 without sanction; had opened the hundi of the temple without departmental supervision and without intimation to the departmental authorities; had kept huge amounts of cash on hand during the period 20.06.2001 to 31.07.2001 and had deposited these amounts in a fixed deposit only on 31.07.2001 resulting in the temple sustaining loss of interest; had appropriated receipts directly without depositing it in a bank in the first instance; had sold away gold and silver articles without the knowledge and supervision of departmental authorities; had diverted Rs.1,00,000/-, set apart for construction of Kalyana Mandapam, without the knowledge and permission of departmental authorities; had failed to produce budget estimates from 2001-2002; had failed to submit replies to the pending audit objections for its review; had operated a number of accounts which were opened in individual names with temple funds, had sold away sarees and blouse pieces offered by devotees without the knowledge and supervision of departmental authorities; had failed to get the estimates sanctioned for construction of Kalyana Katta; and had failed to get the work valued, etc. 14. 14. The Commissioner observed that the 4th respondent had kept heavy cash balances, appropriated receipts directly, diverted funds as per his whims and fancies, executed works without obtaining sanctioned plans and estimates, incurred heavy and extravagant expenditure without calling for tenders, had opened hundies and sold gold and silver ornaments without departmental supervision, had not maintained vouchers and bills for the works stated to have been executed, booked false expenditure for supply of gravel to road etc. which were grave in nature. The Commissioner held that the 4th respondent herein had failed to discharge the duties and perform the functions of a trustee in accordance with the provisions of Act 30 of 1987 and the rules made thereunder. The Commissioner disqualified the 4th respondent herein from being the founder trustee of Sri Vengamamba Perantalu Ammavari Temple, Narrawada, Duttalur Mandal, Nellore District with immediate effect. 15. The findings of the enquiry officer, and the conclusions of the Commissioner of Endowments, establish that the 4th respondent herein has committed grave and serious illegalities. While Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would vehemently contend that, in the light of such grave and serious irregularities having been established, the 1st respondent could not have granted status quo ante as on 19.09.2009 resulting in the 4th respondent continuing in office. I consider it wholly unnecessary to examine this contention as it is evident that, despite the petitioner having filed a caveat and without putting him on notice and giving him an opportunity of being heard, the 1st respondent had passed the impugned order directing maintenance of status quo as on 19.09.2009 i.e., the date on which the Commissioner of Endowments passed the order dated 19.09.2009. 16. Suffice it to hold that the impugned order of the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice. As more than six months have elapsed from the date on which the 2nd respondent-Commissioner passed the order dated 19.09.2009 disqualifying the 4th respondent from being a founder trustee of the temple, I consider it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent to finally dispose of the Revision petition filed by the 4th respondent instead of directing them to hear the stay petition afresh. 17. 17. As exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner, in passing the order dated 19.09.2009, is valid the 1st respondent shall examine all other questions raised in challenge to the order of the Commissioner dated 19.09.2009 except his jurisdiction to pass the said order. The 1st respondent shall put both the petitioner and the 4th respondent on notice, afford them an opportunity of being heard and, thereafter, pass final orders in the Revision petition in accordance with law. It is made clear that the order of the 2nd respondent Commissioner of Endowments dated 19.09.2009 shall continue to remain in force till the 1st respondent passes final orders in the Revision Petition filed by the 4th respondent. 18. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs