Judgment : This Writ Petition is instituted seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the order passed on 23.02.2006 by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Vijayawada recognizing the 2nd respondent herein as a member belonging to the founder’s family of Sri Kasi Visweswara Swamy Temple, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna District as unjust, illegal and arbitrary. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ch. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri V.V.L.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The case of the writ petitioner is that the subject temple has been got constructed by two individuals, namely Sri Bhimavarapu Kameswara Rao and Sri Bhimavarapu Papa Rao. It was also the case of the writ petitioner that in the register maintained in terms of Section 38 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966, the names of Sri Bhimavarapu Kameswara Rao and Sri Bhimavarapu Papa Rao were recorded as the deceased dharmakarthas of the temple. In the register approved by the department, the name of Sri Bhimavarapu Venkat Rama Narsaiah was recorded as Managing Trustee of the temple. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he belongs to the family of Sri Bhimavarapu Papa Rao, whereas the 2nd respondent herein has claimed to be the adopted son of the son of the deceased Sri Bhimavarapu Kameswara Rao. The 2nd respondent appears to have moved the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Vijayawada to recognize him as a member of the founder’s family for the purpose of managing the affairs of the temple. Entertaining that application, a report was called for from the Inspector of Endowments, Nandigama, Krishna District by the Assistant Commissioner. In his report submitted on 10.11.2005, the Inspector of Endowments, amongst other things, has recorded that Sri Bhimavarapu Papa Rao’s son Sri Gopala Krishna, who was residing at Hyderabad from 1962 onwards, died sometime during 1980 and that the eldest son of the said Sri Gopala Krishna also expired in the year 1995. On that basis, the Assistant Commissioner has come to a conclusion that there are no family members available for the branch of Sri Bhimavarapu Papa Rao and hence, recognized the 2nd respondent herein as a member belonging to the founder’s family. Prior thereto, a notice was also got published in Vaartha Telugu daily newspaper issue dated 29.12.2005 which was circulated in the locality. Prior thereto, a notice was also got published in Vaartha Telugu daily newspaper issue dated 29.12.2005 which was circulated in the locality. Since no objections have been received by the Assistant Commissioner, he passed orders on 23.02.2006 recognizing the 2nd respondent as a member belonging to the founder’s family. It is this order, which is challenged in this Writ Petition. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments is not the competent authority to recognize any member of the founder’s family. Secondly, the Assistant Commissioner has not taken good care before proceeding further in the matter by not conducting a proper enquiry to ascertain as to whether any members of the family of Sri Bhimavarapu Papa Rao are available and alive or not. Further, based upon a factually incorrect report submitted by the Inspector of Endowments, Nandigama, the Assistant Commissioner passed the impugned order recognizing the 2nd respondent as a member belonging to the founder’s family. In support of his contention that the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments is not the competent authority to recognize a member of the founder’s family, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Chinni Subba Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 2008 (3) ALT 190 . The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has also read out some portion in the report said to have been submitted by the Inspector of Endowments, Nandigama on 10.11.2005, which has been referred to in the impugned order to demonstrate that the Inspector of Endowments has conducted a perfunctory enquiry in the matter. Per contra, Sri V.V.L.N. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that the temple in question was registered under Section 6(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and for recognizing the members of the founder’s family, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments is the competent authority and only in case of a dispute arising therefrom, such a dispute could have been resolved by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments prior to 03.01.2008 and after amendments that have been brought about to Sections 82, 83, etcetera by the Amended Act No. 33 of 2007, which were brought into force with effect from 03.01.2008, the power to resolve such disputes is now vested in the Endowments Tribunal established. Therefore, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the Assistant Commissioner has the competence to declare the 2nd respondent as a member belonging to the founder’s family. Further, the learned counsel would submit that the 2nd respondent was taken in adoption by Sri Venkata Rama Narsaiah long years ago, when the writ petitioner was of young age and Sri Venkata Rama Narsaiah is none other than the son of Sri Bhimavarapu Kameswara Rao and consequently, he has been rightly recognized as a member belonging to the founder’s family. It was also contended that without any warrant or justification, the present Writ Petition is instituted nearly six years after the orders were passed recognizing the 2nd respondent as a member belonging to the founder’s family by the Assistant Commissioner on 23.03.2006 and hence, this Writ Petition may be dismissed as hit by latches. It will be appropriate to notice the provisions contained in Sections 15 and 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, which was brought into force on 21.04.1987. In terms of Section 6 of this Act, the Commissioner was required to prepare separately and publish in the prescribed manner a list of charitable institutions and endowments or religious institutions and endowments other than Maths, in accordance with sub-sections (a), (b) or (c) of the said Section, depending upon the annual income calculated for the purpose of levy of contribution in terms of Section 65 of the Act. There is no dispute between the parties that the subject temple is the one, which is included in the list prepared under Section 6(c) of the 1987 Act. Section 15 of the Act dealt with appointment of trustees. The third proviso to subsection (2) of Section 15 empowers the recognized founder or member of the founder’s family to discharge the functions of the Board of Trustees till one such is constituted. Therefore, the recognition of an individual, either as a founder or as a member belonging to the founder’s family, acquires significance. Section 17 dealt with the detailed procedure for appointment of trustees. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 17 enables either the founder or any of the members of the founder’s family, if qualified, to be appointed as one of the trustees. Section 17 dealt with the detailed procedure for appointment of trustees. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 17 enables either the founder or any of the members of the founder’s family, if qualified, to be appointed as one of the trustees. Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 17 declared that the children, grand children and so on who are in the agnatic line of succession for the time being in force of the founder can be recognized as members belonging to the family of the founder. Sub-section (1) of Section 17 will have a bearing upon the controversy at issue and hence, it is appropriate to notice it fully. Section 17 Procedure for making appointments of trustees and their term:-(1) in making the appointment of trustees under Section 15, the Government, the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, shall have due regard to the religious denominations or any such section thereof to which the institution belongs or the endowment is made and the wishes of the founder: Provided that the founder or one of the members of the family of the founder, if qualified as prescribed shall be appointed as one of the trustees. As to whether the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments is the competent authority to recognize any person as a member belonging to the founder’s family or not, has fallen for consideration before this Court in G. Rajendranath Goud v. State of A.P. 2006 (1) ALD 705 . My learned Brother Justice V.V.S. Rao, after considering the provision contained in Section 6 of the Act, has arrived at the following conclusion in paragraph 18: “……….. Insofar as the charitable institution falling under Sections 6(b) and 6(c) are concerned, the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner respectively are competent to constitute Board of Trustees…..” In the same judgment, in paragraph 33, this is how the issue has been concluded: “In a situation where this exercise has already been completed either before the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pannalal Bansilal v State of A.P., or while the circular issued by the Commissioner of Endowments was in operation or before coming into force of the amended Section 87(1)(h), unless and until such person or persons are recognized by the appointing authority under Section 17(1), no such person can be appointed as a member of the Board of Trustees. In the event of ‘recognition’ of all successors of the founder as members of the founder’s family, it is for the appointing authority to recognize one of them subject to fulfilling the qualifications as one of the members of the family of the founder for being appointed as a trustee. Therefore, the conclusion is that when a member or members of the founder’s family are not determined or declared, it is only the Deputy Commissioner who has to conduct enquiry and any competent authority –be it Government; Commissioner of Endowments or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner – cannot have any jurisdiction to conduct such enquiry contemplated under Section 87(1)(h) of the Act.” Similarly, this Court in Chinni Subba Rao’s case (1 supra) has also come to the same conclusion as in the case of G. Rajendranath Goud (2 supra). Therefore, the principle that emerges is wherever there is no dispute in recognizing any person as a member belonging to the founder’s family, it is the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be, depending upon the classification of the institution concerned, in terms of sub-sections (a), (b) and (c) of Section 6, is competent to appoint/recognize such a person as a member belonging to the founder’s family. As was already noted supra, till such time a Board of Trustees is constituted for any such institution, it is such a member of the family of the founder who is entitled to manage the affairs of such an institution. Such a member, who is recognized as such, is also entitled to be appointed as one of the trustees, provided he is qualified. In other words, so long as he possesses the necessary qualifications specified under Section 18 and does not correspondingly suffer from any disqualifications set out under Section 19 of the Act, any such member of the founder’s family can be appointed as a Board of Trustees for the institution concerned. I therefore, have no hesitation to reject the contention of the writ petitioner that the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Vijayawada has no jurisdiction to recognize the 2nd respondent as a member belonging to the founder’s family. It is only the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, prior to 03.01.2008, who is competent authority to resolve any dispute concerning the issue of recognition of a person as belonging to the founder’s family. It is only the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, prior to 03.01.2008, who is competent authority to resolve any dispute concerning the issue of recognition of a person as belonging to the founder’s family. In the absence of any such dispute, the Assistant Commissioner has the competence to deal with, in case the institution concerned falls under Section 6(c) of the Act. The writ petitioner herein has raised a dispute in recognizing the 2nd respondent as a member belonging to the founder’s family. There appears to be some genuineness in this regard. Admittedly, Sri Bhimavarapu Kameswara Rao and Sri Papa Rao were recognized for a very long time as the founders. Therefore, two separate branches of the family members would be existing which amongst them are or all of them should be recognized as members belonging to the founder’s family is an issue, which can be resolved only after necessary evidence is collected in the matter. It might be quite possible that the Inspector of Endowments at Nandigama may have conducted an enquiry in the local area and that too in a summary manner. He may not have noticed that the members of the family of Sri Papa Rao are very much alive and available. That could be an error of judgment on his part. Similarly, he may not have noticed the fact that the 2nd respondent herein was only an adopted son of Sri Venkata Rama Narsaiah, but these factual disputes can be got resolved only by approaching the competent forum. Therefore, it is appropriate to preserve the liberty to the writ petitioner to raise such questions before the competent forum. However, I must also answer the contention canvassed on behalf of the 2nd respondent that this Writ Petition is hit by latches. It is no doubt true that prior to passing the impugned order on23.02.2006, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments has taken out a publication in a Telugu daily newspaper having circulation in the local area, but if the members of the founder’s family are residing elsewhere, such notifications may not have caught their attention. Further, it is asserted that even after 23.02.2006, the writ petitioner was actively associated with the affairs of the temple, but never was he informed of the appointment or recognition of the 2nd respondent as a member of the founder’s family. Therefore, it cannot be said that this Writ Petition is hit by latches. Further, it is asserted that even after 23.02.2006, the writ petitioner was actively associated with the affairs of the temple, but never was he informed of the appointment or recognition of the 2nd respondent as a member of the founder’s family. Therefore, it cannot be said that this Writ Petition is hit by latches. I therefore, reject this contention on behalf of the 2nd respondent. In view of the finding recorded under the first issue, as to the competence of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, this Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving liberty to the writ petitioner to work out his remedies before the appropriate forum. No costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any shall stand dismissed.