ORDER : 1. The petitioner sought to be recognized as a member of the founder family in respect of Sri. Poleramma Ammavari Temple, Peddapalli, Nagaram, Guntur District. On the basis of the said application of the petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur submitted a report to the Commissioner, Endowments. In this report, it was stated that Sri. Yellaparagada Narasimha Rao was the founder of the institution and handed over the temple to the department in the year 1987-1988 while discharging the functions of the Trustee of the temple. It is further stated that though there are no records or orders about the recognition of the founder family members, the statement in the register maintained under Section 38 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (for short ‘the 1966 Act’) and the statement in the register maintained under Section 43 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the 1987 Act’) shows that the Yellapragada family was recognized as the founder family. 2. On the basis of this report, the Commissioner, Endowments had directed the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments to take necessary action, in view of the directions of this Court in W.P. No. 2596 of 2009 wherein it was held that once a person has been recognized as a member of the founder family or his forefathers were recognized as founder family members under the Endowments Act of 1966, such persons can straight away approach the competent authority for recognition, without approaching the Endowments Tribunal. This facility is available where there is no dispute among the family members. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Guntur who is the 3rd respondent had issued impugned proceedings L. Dis. No. A2/ENDW-RADMOGEN/3/19, dated 17.07.2020 directing the petitioner to approach the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, for recognition as founder family member of the subject temple. 4. When there is no dispute that the father of the petitioner had been recognized as the founder of the temple and the same had been recorded in the Statutory Registers maintained both under the 1966 Act and the 1987 Act, it would not be appropriate for the Deputy Commissioner to relegate the petitioner to the Endowments Tribunal. 5. 4. When there is no dispute that the father of the petitioner had been recognized as the founder of the temple and the same had been recorded in the Statutory Registers maintained both under the 1966 Act and the 1987 Act, it would not be appropriate for the Deputy Commissioner to relegate the petitioner to the Endowments Tribunal. 5. The erstwhile High Court of A.P. in the Judgment dated 26.07.2010 in W.P. No. 2596 of 2009, after a review and analysis of the provisions of Section 17 and other provisions of the 1987 Act, had held that once the applicant or his forefathers are recognized as either the founder of the Endowment or as a Hereditary Trustee of such an Endowment, it would be the competent authority viz. the Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner of Endowments, who would be the appropriate authority to grant recognition as a member of the founder family to such an applicant. It is only in a situation where there is a dispute between the members of the family as to whether an applicant is a member of the family or not, the said dispute has to go before the Endowments Tribunal. 6. In the present case, there is no such dispute. It is not clear as to what is the basis on which the 3rd respondent has relegated the petitioner to the Endowments Tribunal. 7. In view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide L. Dis. No. A2/ENDW-RADMOGEN/3/19 dated 17.07.2020 with a further direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner, on the basis of the proceedings of the Commissioner, Endowments vide D. Dis. No. D3/COE-14021(51)/1/2020, dated 13.07.2020 and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no orders as costs. 8. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Writ petition, shall stand closed.