JUDGMENT 1. These three writ petitions relate to appointment of Board of Trustees to Sri Polerammavari Devasthanam, Kamepalli, Jarugumalli Mandal, Prakasam District and hence, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners in W.P. Nos.321 and 768 of 2012 are brothers and they claim that Chaganti Rosaiah Naidu, son of Kondapa Naidu constructed the temple in 1952 with his own money in his own land of Ac.0.05 cents out of Ac.0.28 cents in survey No.350/5, Account No.565 of Kamepalli and Rosaiah Naidu, who had no issues, executed a registered Will in favour of the sons of his elder daughter-Hanumayamma, who are the petitioners herein. The petitioners claimed further that the petitioner in W.P. No.321 of 2012 was mutated in the revenue records in respect of the land and a Trust under the name and style of Poleramma Devalaya Abhivrudhi Sangam was registered with the Registrar of Societies by the petitioners and some other villagers. The private temple was never notified under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987, A.P. Act 30 of 1987 (for short “the Act”) and the private land was never acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. While so, the local Legislator wrote a letter, dated 20-08-2011 requesting the Government to take over the temple as represented by the public representatives of Kamepalli village and he was referring to an earlier letter, which he asked to be not taken into consideration and recommended three names for appointment as Committee Members. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur appointed respondents 4 to 6 as the trustees contrary to law. The 2nd respondent abdicated his statutory duty, did not consider the merits and demerits of the applicants and simply appointed the persons proposed by the local M.L.A., whose letter was endorsed by the Minister for Endowments. The petitioners claim that respondents 4 to 6 have not even submitted their applications and hence, they desired the proceedings of the appointment to be declared illegal and set aside and the appointment to be suspended during the pendency of the writ petitions, as the Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987 (for short “the Rules”) were violated in letter and spirit. 3. 3. The petitioner in W.P. No.8379 of 2012 claims to be one of the applicants for appointment as member of the Trust Board and a report about their antecedents was also submitted by the competent authority on 16-12-2011. He claimed to have been shocked and surprised by the appointment under the impugned proceedings. Rule 4 (1) of the Rules was violated by not publishing the notification at least in one of the district editions of daily newspapers and due to the absence of any independent scrutiny and application of mind by the competent authority, who was merely influenced by the dictates of the local MLA., even without declaring the temple as a public temple, the mandate of the Rules was observed in breach. Reports of antecedents were called for twice without assigning any reasons and hence, this writ petitioner also desired the impugned proceedings to be declared illegal and to be suspended during the pendency of the writ petition. 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments in his counter-affidavits in W.P. Nos.768 and 8379 of 2012 claimed that though the local M.L.A., gave a letter for appointment of three persons, which was endorsed by the Hon’ble Minister for Endowments, the 2nd respondent did not consider the same and appointed respondents 4 to 6 as Trustees in public interest after following the due procedure and the rules. It is true that Chaganti Rosaiah Naidu, son of Kondapa Naidu installed Poleramma Goddess temple in his waste land, but later the villagers formed a Committee and constructed the present temple with the donations from all the villagers and the public. Vankadari Narasimham, Channareddy Narasimha Rao, Chidipotu Brahmaiah, Pattipathi Madhava and Bazawada Kotaiah acted as a Committee to develop the temple and they also purchased some land under a registered document, dated 30-06-2008 and also persuaded Sri Pavuluri Venkateswarlu to bequeath his property to the temple under two documents. The petitioners were claimed to have never acted as members of the Committee or Trustees of the temple and the family of Rosaiah Naidu or his daughters never participated in the affairs of the temple. The registered Will executed by Rosaiah Naidu on 10-08-1988 made no reference to survey No.350/5, in which the temple is located and the adangal clearly mentions the land to be covered by Grama Devatha Poleramma Temple. The registered Will executed by Rosaiah Naidu on 10-08-1988 made no reference to survey No.350/5, in which the temple is located and the adangal clearly mentions the land to be covered by Grama Devatha Poleramma Temple. After the petitioner in W.P. No.321 of 2012 failed to secure any interim orders, W.P. No.768 of 2012 was filed, in which interim suspension of the orders of the 2nd respondent was ordered. Poleramma Devalaya Abhivrudhi Sangam was registered with 13 members only on 29-08-2011, while the temple was developed 15 years earlier and the temple site was levelled under N.R.E.G.S. at an expense of Rs.6,26,000/- (food for work scheme) and a community hall was constructed in the temple premises from M.P. LADS at a cost of Rs.2,50,000/-as per the unanimous resolution of the Gram Panchayat, dated 12-01-2007. The temple was published under Section 6 of the Act on 19-11-2011 by the Commissioner of Endowments and the earlier Committee registered the institution with the department under Section 43 of the Act vide Registered No.651, dated 28-10-2011. Applications were invited for appointment of Trustees from the public on 25-11-2011, which notification was affixed at the temple and the Gram Panchayat office and if anybody is aggrieved by the appointment of Trustees, the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone No.2, Tirupati has to be approached under A.P. Act 30 of 1987. The antecedents of the applicants were duly verified and only an appeal under Section 92 of the Act lies, but not a writ petition against the appointment. 5. Respondents 4 to 6 in their counter-affidavits in W.P. Nos.321 and 768 of 2012 claimed that on the report of the Inspector, Endowments, Kandukuru, dated 28-10-2011 about the temple being managed by private persons with V. Narasimham acting as the Chairman, the Commissioner of Endowments in his proceedings, dated 19-11-2011 published the temple under Section 6 of the Act. The notice inviting applications for constituting a Non-hereditary Trust Board was pasted on the notice boards of the relevant offices and the temple and the Inspector, Endowments sent a report, dated 16-12-2011 and another report dated 24-12-2011 to the 2nd respondent after verification of the antecedents, qualifications and disqualifications of all the applicants. The Board of Trustees was duly constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments and the Trustees were administered oath of office and secrecy on 27-12-2007, which was recorded in the minutes book. The Board of Trustees was duly constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments and the Trustees were administered oath of office and secrecy on 27-12-2007, which was recorded in the minutes book. Chunduri Venkateswarlu was elected as Chairman of the Board of Trustees on 07-01-2012, after which the writ petitions were filed. The 2nd respondent did not consider the letter of the M.L.A., or the endorsement of the Minister for Endowments and the Trustees were appointed in public interest after following the prescribed procedures. Respondents 4 to 6 in their counter-affidavits spoke in an identical fashion as the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments in his counter-affidavits in all other respects, and desired the writs to fail. 6. Sri Kurra Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the three cases, Sri W.B. Srinivas, learned counsel representing respondents 4 to 6 in W.P. Nos.321 and 768 of 2012 and respondents 2 to 4 in W.P. No.8379 of 2012 and Sri P.C. Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1 to 3 in W.P. Nos.321 and 768 of 2012 and respondent No.1 in W.P. No.8379 of 2012 are heard. 7. The point for consideration is whether the appointment of Non-hereditary Board of Trustees for the temple in question is vitiated in law or fact? 8. Point: The report of the Inspector of Endowments to the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, dated 28-10-2011 stated about no founder family member being declared in respect of the temple and there being no maintenance of records by the persons in management of the temple with Sri V. Narasimham as the Chairman. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments also appeared to have forwarded the certificate of registration in respect of the temple with the necessary particulars under Section 43 (5) of the Act to the Commissioner, Endowments. He appeared to have requested the Commissioner, Endowments to publish the temple under Section 6 of the Act and though it is true that in his letter, dated 28-10-2011, he mentioned that it is felt that there is gross misappropriation, it was only due to the person in management not maintaining any accounts for the income derived, but not on any complaint from any devotee or any other member of public or on any information, verifiable or unverifiable, available with the Assistant Commissioner himself. The feeling that there is gross misappropriation, is not substantiated by any material, on which such suspicion could have gained any respectability even as seen from the said communication. It is further seen that the temple was published under Section 6 of the Act by the proceedings of the Commissioner, dated 19-11-2011 and that the levelling of the land of the temple appeared to have taken place under food for work programme at a cost of Rs.6,26,000/-. Thus, the claim that there was no notification under Section 6 of the Act etc., does not appear to be true or correct. 9. A copy of the registered Will, dated 10-08-1988 executed by Chaganti Rosaiah Naidu absolutely made no reference to the temple or survey No.350/5, in which the temple is located, though the petitioner in W.P. No.321 of 2012 appeared to have been bequeathed all the movable and immovable assets of the executant of the Will. The adangal, though referring to the name of Potu Madhu Babu, stated this particular land to be covered by Poleramma temple and vacant land. Poleramma Devalaya Abhivrudhi Sangam was registered only on 29-08-2011 and the memorandum of association of the said Sangam made no reference to the manner in which the temple was constructed and run up to the date of its registration. Therefore, it is clear that there is no documentary evidence of the temple being developed or run by the family members of Rosaiah Naidu, including the petitioners in W.P. Nos.321 and 768 of 2012, though it is admitted that the temple was constructed in the land of Rosaiah Naidu originally. 10. It is true that the local Legislator addressed a letter to the Hon’ble Minister for Endowments who endorsed the same to the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments for consideration in this regard, but the earlier letter referred to by the Legislator, the recommended names in which were withdrawn by him, is not placed before the Court by any of the parties. Out of the three persons recommended by the Legislator to be appointed as Committee Members of the temple, which was requested to be taken over by the Government, only one person Sri V. Narasimham finds place in the persons appointed and not the other two. 11. Out of the three persons recommended by the Legislator to be appointed as Committee Members of the temple, which was requested to be taken over by the Government, only one person Sri V. Narasimham finds place in the persons appointed and not the other two. 11. The original record relating to the sequence of events has been placed before the Court for perusal by the learned Government Pleader for Endowments and the same indicates that there was a report, dated 16-12-2011 from the Inspector, Endowments to the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments about the antecedents of the three persons recommended by the Legislator and there was another report from him, dated 24-12-2011 about the antecedents of five persons, out of whom three persons are now appointed. Vankadari Narasimham appeared to have found place in both the antecedent reports. Much is sought to be made out as to why the antecedent reports were called for twice, which may be due to the first report being called for on the names suggested by the Legislator, whose applications were also received, while the second report was called for about all the persons who have applied in pursuance of the notification. In any view, if the applications are received from time to time in pursuance of the notification within the time allowed, there is nothing extraordinary or impermissible in calling for the antecedent reports from time to time. The Note file shows the steps having been taken for publishing the temple under Section 6 of the Act, followed by the appointment of Non-hereditary Trust Board and there was nothing adverse against any of the applicants. An element of subjective satisfaction in selecting the persons appointed might have become inevitable, which may not vitiate the appointment by itself, as only three can be selected out of the applicants, if such selection is not vitiated by any other factors. 12. Out of the three persons recommended by the Legislator, thus, only one finds place in the Board appointed and as to what names were suggested in the earlier letter of the Legislator is not known. However, one peculiar feature is that either letter of the Legislator was not found in the original file produced by the learned Government Pleader for Endowments. Be that as it may, it is not the claim of the petitioners that the three persons appointed alone were recommended by the Legislator. However, one peculiar feature is that either letter of the Legislator was not found in the original file produced by the learned Government Pleader for Endowments. Be that as it may, it is not the claim of the petitioners that the three persons appointed alone were recommended by the Legislator. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments states on oath that on the application of his own mind, the appointments were made without reference to any recommendation by the Legislator or the endorsement by the Minister. On the appointment of the Board of Trustees under the impugned proceedings, the Trustees were claimed to have taken the oath of office and secrecy on 27-12-2011 and Sri Chunduri Venkateswarlu was claimed to have been elected as the Chairman of the Trust Board at a meeting on 07-01-2012. The required affidavits of solemn affirmation were also claimed to have been submitted on 27-12-2011 itself and these facts are borne out from the record produced. Therefore, even by the time the interim direction was given in W.P. No.768 of 2012 granting interim suspension of the appointment, the Trust Board had already assumed charge with a Chairman in place. 13. The letter of the Legislator was, thus, not shown to be constituting the basis for appointment of the Trust Board nor is the claim that the temple was not taken into the control of the Endowments Department, found support from the material on record. The claim that the petitioners in W.P. Nos.321 and 768 of 2012 were looking after the temple or any Abhivrudhi Sangam is looking after the temple, is also uncorroborated and the probabilities arising out of the facts and circumstances on record appear to suggest otherwise. 14. The appointment of trustees is governed by the Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987 under G.O. Ms. No.258, Revenue (Endowments-I), dated 31-03-1988 and the Proviso to Rule 4(2) providing for publication of notice in Form-I in any daily newspaper in the language of the locality arises for implementation only, if the institution or endowment is situated in big cities and is capable of meeting the cost of publication. Neither Kamepalli is a big city nor Poleramma temple appearing to be capable of meeting the cost of publication, apart from the fact that in any view, it is an option and not a mandate for the competent authority to make such publication. Neither Kamepalli is a big city nor Poleramma temple appearing to be capable of meeting the cost of publication, apart from the fact that in any view, it is an option and not a mandate for the competent authority to make such publication. The absence of newspaper publication, therefore, cannot be considered to vitiate the impugned appointment and the verification of the qualifications and verification of the antecedents are not shown to be, in any manner, in violation of Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules and the orders appointing the trustees by the competent authority under Rule 7 of the Rules are also not shown to be in violation of any qualifications and disqualifications for trusteeship laid down under the provisions of A.P. Act 30 of 1987 or the merits of the applicants referred to in Rule 8 of the Rules. Vague and unsubstantiated allegations cannot constitute a substitute for a vacuum of facts. 15. Reliance is placed on ThaniPolaiah and others v. Engilala Ramanaiah and another (1997(1) An.W.R. 316)and PagadalaPratap and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others ( 2010(5) ALD 1 )by the petitioners to claim the intervention by the local Legislator to be vitiating the process of appointment. In the first of the decisions, the facts before the learned Judge indicated that the official respondent therein instead of considering the merits, abdicated the statutory duty vested in law and simply appointed the persons proposed by the Minister as per the directions given by him. As already stated, the appointment herein is only of one person among the three names referred to in the letter of the Legislator and the letter of the Legislator contained a request and the endorsement of the Minister was only for consideration. Neither of them expressed themselves in such a fashion as to suggest a mandate or direction to the competent authority to make appointment of only those persons suggested or endorsed by them. In ThaniPolaiah and others v. Engilala Ramanaiah and another (1 supra), the learned Judge noted that the Minister at best could project his men as suitable persons and what was found highly objectionable was a direction to the officer to form trust board with his own men. 16. In ThaniPolaiah and others v. Engilala Ramanaiah and another (1 supra), the learned Judge noted that the Minister at best could project his men as suitable persons and what was found highly objectionable was a direction to the officer to form trust board with his own men. 16. In PagadalaPratap and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2 supra), Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan, in an exhaustive consideration of the issues arising out of such situations with reference to the provisions of the statute and the rules, had still observed that - “While public representatives, be they MLAs or Ministers, may be entitled to recommend persons whom they consider to be entitled for appointment as trustees of religious institutions, neither can they dictate that these persons be appointed as trustees nor can the competent authority surrender its discretion and abdicate its statutory duty of appointing only those persons as trustees who satisfy the conditions prescribed in Act 30 of 1987, and the Trustees Rules. Only those recommended by the Minister of Information and Public Relations, as forwarded to him by the local M.L.A., (other than the two who were found ineligible), have been blindly appointed as trustees without adhering to the statutory provisions of Act 30 of 1987 or the statutory rules i.e., the Trustees Rules, 1987. Appointing those recommended by the Minister as trustees is evidently at his dictates, and reflects surrender of discretion and abdication of duty by the competent authority. The impugned G.O., appointing only those recommended by the Minister for Information and Public Relations, as trustees without independent exercise of mind is ultra vires the provisions of Act 30 of 1987 and the Trustees Rules and must, therefore, be set aside.” In the case before His Lordship, no independent exercise as mandated by Rule 8 of the Rules was carried out in determining why none of the other nearly 100 applicants should not be appointed. The learned Judge referred to the pre-requisites prescribed by Rule 8 of the Rules and found that the Note file does not even record the Government’s satisfaction that those appointed as trustees fulfilled these essential requirements. The learned Judge referred to the pre-requisites prescribed by Rule 8 of the Rules and found that the Note file does not even record the Government’s satisfaction that those appointed as trustees fulfilled these essential requirements. The non-application of mind by the Government under the Act and the Rules, absence of proper antecedent verification including about qualifications and disqualifications, absence of independent examination of the candidature of each of the eligible applicants, etc., were held to vitiate the appointment therein. Referring to the need for exercise of discretion on the dictates of the own judgment and conscience of the competent authority, uncontrolled by the judgment or conscience of others, the learned Judge negatived the appointment of the trustees only as recommended by the Minister blindly without adhering to the statutory provisions. The factual matrix of the present case is altogether different as already stated and merely because the Legislator has recommended certain names and the Minister has made an endorsement, the same will not vitiate the appointment, if the competent authority did not surrender its discretion and did not abdicate its statutory duty in making such appointment. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments herein stated on oath in his counter-affidavits that he did not take into consideration the letter of the Legislator or the endorsement of the Minister in selecting the Board of Trustees. No malice in the process of appointment can be presumed and even inPagadala Pratap and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2 supra), the learned Judge observed that it may be that certain circumstances might create suspicion, perhaps a strong suspicion, but it is trite to say that suspicion,however grave, cannot substitute evidence and an allegation as to bad faith or indirect motive or purpose cannot be held established except on clear proof thereof. The mere coincidence of one of the names recommended by the Legislator being ultimately found in the list of appointment, cannot by itself either establish the presence of any malice or consideration of any extraneous factors or abdication of his statutory duty by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments. 17. The mere coincidence of one of the names recommended by the Legislator being ultimately found in the list of appointment, cannot by itself either establish the presence of any malice or consideration of any extraneous factors or abdication of his statutory duty by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments. 17. What has been challenged in these three writ petitions is only the appointment of the three persons to the Non-hereditary Trust Board and not any other issues relating to the temple and the consideration, thus, confined to such appointment does not reveal, on a close examination of the entire material on record, any strong reasons or grounds to nullify such appointment. These three writ petitions should, therefore, fail. 18. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed without costs.