ORDER : 1. Heard both sides and considered their respective submissions. The Form-I notice issued under Rule 4(1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and Rules made there under (for short "the Rules") is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in S.V. Sudhakara Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others 2008 (3) ALT 754 : 2008 (4) ALD 225 (D.B.) held issuance of notification by the competent authority i.e. the authority specified in the Statute and the same cannot be delegated to any other authority. It is the specific case of the petitioner that while the notification was issued in the name of the Commissioner, the applications were directed to be received by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Chittoor, which is impermissible. 2. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, places on record the instructions received from the office of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada. The Commissioner in his instructions has referred to the format of the notification in Form-I as per the Act, which reads as under: It is hereby informed that a Trust Board will be constituted to Sri.........Village............ Mandal......District.......by the Government/Commissioner/Regional Joint Commissioner/ Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department.....under Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987) after (twenty) days from the date of this Notice to....... Interested persons may send their applications for trusteeship in the prescribed proforma vide Form II of the rule under Section 17(3) within twenty days from the date of this notice to................ 3. A perusal of the format extracted above discloses that after setting out Section 17(3), receipt of the applications to be sent to was left blank by placing dots. In other words, so far as ministerial act of receiving applications can be delegated, the object is obvious as the Commissioner in the present case or the Government Secretary cannot sit and receive the applications. It can also be understood that receiving applications being the ministerial act and preparing a note based on the same for decision of the appropriate authorities, who are competent to take, does not defeat the object of the procedure involved. It can also be understood that receiving applications being the ministerial act and preparing a note based on the same for decision of the appropriate authorities, who are competent to take, does not defeat the object of the procedure involved. In the light of the above legal position, the ratio of the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner wherein this Court held that under Rule 4(1) of the Rules, the functions of the competent authority cannot be delegated, has no application. 4. Under the above said circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition and is accordingly dismissed. It may also be borne in mind that insofar as processing of the applications and identifying suitable persons for appointing a trusteeship is concerned, the Rules empower only specified authorities and the same has to be strictly adhered to. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending in the writ petition, if any, shall stand closed.