ORDER : Sri Nandikunta Vigneswara Swamy Temple, situated in Nadendla Village and Mandal, Guntur District, is being presently managed by the petitioners. The forefathers of the petitioners had been given Ac.1.00 cents of land, by way of a Registered Gift Deed, dated 03.01.1940, for the purpose of maintaining the subject temple, and the same was carried out earlier by the forefathers of the petitioners and subsequently, the petitioners themselves. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the proceedings of the Commissioner, Endowments, who is arrayed as the 2nd respondent, in Rc.No.J1/350/2021, dated 29.04.2021, directing the publication of the temple as a Hindu Religious Institution under Section 6(c)(ii) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”). These proceedings also directed the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Guntur to take necessary action for registration of the temple under section 43 of the Act, and for submission of proposals for entering the property of this Institution in the register under Section 22-A(1)(c) of Registration Act. 3. The objection to the said order is twofold. Firstly, it is contended that the temple has no property and the lands being claimed, as the property of the Temple, have been gifted to the forefathers of the Petitioners and consequently they are the owners of the lands, as such the lands cannot be registered in the name of the Temple and further the exercise is a malafide exercise being carried out for extraneous. Secondly, the procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent in directing publication of the temple under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Act, without any notice to the petitioners and without registering the temple under Section 43 of the Act, is in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the provisions of the Act, itself. 4. Sri V.Venu Gopala Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has made submissions on the impermissibility of registering or publishing the Temple under the Act as the said temple is more in the nature of a private temple and is being effectively managed by the petitioners and the impugned proceedings are more on account of pressure from local people for extraneous purposes. 5. Sri V.Venu Gopala Rao, would further submit, without prejudice to his first contention, that the procedure evolved by the 2nd respondent is in direct contravention of the provisions of the Act, as well as principles of natural justice. 5. Sri V.Venu Gopala Rao, would further submit, without prejudice to his first contention, that the procedure evolved by the 2nd respondent is in direct contravention of the provisions of the Act, as well as principles of natural justice. He relies upon the Judgment of the erstwhile High Court of A.P in V.V.V.R.K.Yachendra Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh.,, 1987 (1) ALT 256 and this Court in W.P.No 21986 of 2021 dated 05.10.2021, wherein it was held that publication of any religious endowments under Section 6 of the Act can be done only after notice is given to the persons under the management of the said temple or endowment. As no notice has been given to the petitioners, who are in management of the temple, the impugned proceedings would have to be set aside on this short ground. 6. Sri V. Venu Gopala Rao, also contends that any attempt to register a temple or religious endowment or for that matter any charitable institution requires the institution to be first registered under Section 43 of the Act. After such registration, an assessment of the income of the institution has to be done under Section 65 of the Act. Thereafter, the institution is to be published under the relevant category of Section 6 of the Act, depending upon the ascertained income of the Institution. As this has not been done, the impugned proceedings would have to be set aside. 7. The respondents have filed a counter wherein it is stated that the impugned proceedings had been issued after a detailed report was obtained from the Inspector, Endowments department wherein complaints were being received from the villagers that the present management of the temple have been misusing the donations being received by the temple. However, there is no dispute that the petitioners are in management of the temple and no notice was issued to the petitioners prior to the passing of the impugned order. 8. The erstwhile High Court of A.P in V.V.V.R.K.Yachendra Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh., and this Court, in its order in W.P.No.21986 of 2021 dated 05.10.2021, had held that publication of an institution under Section 6 of the Act cannot be done without a notice being given to the persons in management to show cause why such a publication should not be done. State of Andhra Pradesh., and this Court, in its order in W.P.No.21986 of 2021 dated 05.10.2021, had held that publication of an institution under Section 6 of the Act cannot be done without a notice being given to the persons in management to show cause why such a publication should not be done. As no notice has been given to the present management, the impugned order would have to be set aside. 9. However, the matter does not rest there. The manner and mode in which institutions are to be registered under the Act has to be crystallised to answer the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 10. All Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments, (hereinafter referred to as Institutions) as defined under various sub sections of Section 2 of the Act, whether registered or not, fall within the ambit of the Endowments Act. The procedure for registering these Institutions has been put in place in the Endowments Act. 11. Section 43 of the Act, 1987 stipulates that the trustee or other person in management of every institution, except those Institutions which have already been registered under the Endowments Act 1966, shall make an application, for registration under the Endowments Act, to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, within 90 days of the commencement of the 1987 Act or 90 days from the founding of such an institution. In the event of such an application not being submitted, the Commissioner, Endowments can get the Institution registered under Section 44 of the Act. It is significant that, while Section 44 of the Act requires the Commissioner to follow a prescribed procedure, for registering an Institution, there is no such requirement in Section 43 of Act. As the procedure, to be followed under Section 43, is not set out elsewhere, the said procedure would have to be ascertained from the provisions of Section 43 itself. 12. As the procedure, to be followed under Section 43, is not set out elsewhere, the said procedure would have to be ascertained from the provisions of Section 43 itself. 12. Upon an application, containing various details relating to the Institution, as set out in Section 43 (4), being filed by the Trustee or Person in management, the Assistant Commissioner, shall after making such enquiry as he thought fit and after hearing, under Section 43 (5) of the Act, any “person having interest” in the institution or endowment, would register the Institution duly recording the details set out in section 43 (4), with such alterations that may be necessary on account of the variations found by the Assistant Commissioner in the course of the enquiry. This discretion would extend to refusing to register the Institution also. The term “Person having Interest” has been defined in Section 2(18) of the Act as follows: (18) "Person having interest" includes - (a) in the case of a math, a disciple of the math or a person of the religious persuasion to which the math belongs ; (b) in the case of a charitable institution or endowment or a religious institution other than a math or a religious endowment a person who is entitled to attend at or is in the habit of attending the performance of service, charity or worship connected with the institution or endowment or who is entitled to partake or is in the habit of partaking in the benefit of any charity or the distribution of gifts thereat ; (c) in the case of a specific endowment a person who is entitled to attend at or is in the habit of attending the performance of the service or charity or who is entitled to partake or is in the habit of partaking in the benefit of the charity ; This definition, which is an inclusive definition, includes followers and devotees of Maths and Temples and beneficiaries of charitable institutions, within the said definition. 13. Section 43 (5) of the Act mandates an enquiry with opportunity to all persons having interest, to raise all necessary issues before the Assistant Commissioner. 13. Section 43 (5) of the Act mandates an enquiry with opportunity to all persons having interest, to raise all necessary issues before the Assistant Commissioner. The issues that can be raised in such an enquiry would include the issues of whether the Institution is a Charitable or Hindu Religious Institution or Endowment falling within the ambit of the Endowments Act, the correctness of the details that are required to be set out, in the application under Section 43 (4) and such other matters which have a bearing on the Institution. This would necessitate a notice to all persons having interest to put forth their views and objections relating to the registration of the Institution and the details which are to be registered. As the definition of a “person having interest” brings within its ambit a very large section of society, it would be appropriate for the registering authority to serve personal notice of the application on such persons that, to the knowledge and belief of the registering authority, answer the description of “person with interest” and a general notice, to all other persons having interest, by publication in the newspapers which are circulated in the area where the Institution itself or the main office of the institution is located. The Registering authority after giving adequate time for objections to be filed and after considering the said objections would be required to register the Institution or reject the application of the trustee or person in management. 14. In the event of such a Trustee or other person in management failing to apply for registration of the Institution or Endowment, the Commissioner of Endowments can issue a notice to such a person to make an application in that regard under Section 44 of the Act. This provision reads as under: Section 44. 14. In the event of such a Trustee or other person in management failing to apply for registration of the Institution or Endowment, the Commissioner of Endowments can issue a notice to such a person to make an application in that regard under Section 44 of the Act. This provision reads as under: Section 44. Power of Commissioner to have the institution or endowment registered:- Where any trustee or other person incharge of the management of a charitable or religious institution or endowment fails to apply for the registration of the institution or endowment, the Commissioner, shall give notice to the trustee or the other person aforesaid to make an application in that regard within a specified period and if he fails to make such application within the period specified, the Commissioner may have the institution or endowment registered after following the prescribed procedure and recover the cost incurred for such registration from the funds of such institution or endowment. The term “Prescribed” has been defined in Section 2 (19) to mean, the procedure prescribed by the Rules made under this Act. The Institutions and Endowments Registration Rules, 1987 have been framed, by way of G.O.Ms. No. 631, Revenue (Endowments-I), dated 30.06.1989, prescribing the procedure to be followed under Section 44 of the Act. Under these Rules, the process starts with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, under Rule 4, informing the Commissioner, Endowments, the name of the Trustee or person in management, who has failed to apply for registration, as required under section 43 (1). Upon such a report being sent, the Commissioner, under Rule 5, shall issue a notice, in Form-II, prescribed under the Rules, to such person requiring the said person to file an application for registration, within the time given under the said notice. The person receiving the notice, is entitled, under Rule 6, to file his objections to such a notice. In the event of objections being filed, the Commissioner, Endowments would have to consider and dispose of the objections and either drop further proceedings or direct the Assistant Commissioner to register the Institution, at the cost of the Institution. Where no objections are filed or where an application for registration is filed, the commissioner can direct the Assistant Commissioner concerned, to register the Institution, at the cost of the Institution. Where no objections are filed or where an application for registration is filed, the commissioner can direct the Assistant Commissioner concerned, to register the Institution, at the cost of the Institution. It may be pointed out that under Section 44 of the Act read with the Rules, it is the Commissioner, Endowments who is the authority to take all decisions in relation to registration under Section 44 of the Act. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner would, if so directed by the Commissioner, only carry out the consequential action of registering the Institution. 15. There is no provision, under Section 44, for hearing any objections that the person in management or trustee may have about the registration of the Institution. However, Rule 6 of the rules gives such an opportunity to the Trustee or person in management. This right to a notice and filing of objections has not been given to any of the persons having interest, either under the Act or the Rules. A similar situation had come up before the erstwhile High court of Andhra Pradesh in V.V.V.R.K.Yachendra Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. In this case there was no provision of notice or opportunity being given, under the Endowments Act, 1966, before an Institution was registered under the said Act. The trustee of one such temple which had been registered had approached the Court with the plea that the said temple had been registered without any notice and opportunity being given to him to show that the temple was a private temple which could not be registered. The Court, after noticing the fact that there was no provision, in the 1966 Act, for issuing notice prior to registration had held as follows: 8. There is no express provision in the section obliging the Commissioner to issue notice to the trustee of a private temple before enlisting the temple as a public temple. But having regard to the consequences of the notification under Sec. 6(c)(ii), it cannot be doubted that it affects the civil rights of trustees like the petitioner. It is well settled that when civil rights of a citizen are affected by the proposed action under provisions of Act, compliance of the principles of natural justice is implict, unless this requirement is specifically taken away by the statute itself. It is well settled that when civil rights of a citizen are affected by the proposed action under provisions of Act, compliance of the principles of natural justice is implict, unless this requirement is specifically taken away by the statute itself. In Smt. Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India the passport of the petitioner was impounded without notice to the petitioner as there was no provision in the Passport Act requiring the authorities to give notice before impounding the Passport, the Supreme Court observed: “The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of quality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a broading omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14. It must be “right and just and fair “and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive: otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied”. 9. In a very recent judgment in Central in Land Water Transport Corpn Ltd. v. Brojo Nath the Supreme Court held: “The progression of the judicial concept of Art. 14 from a prohibition against discriminatory class legislation to an invalidating factor for any discriminatory or arbitrary State action has been traced in Tulsiram Patel's case (1985) 3 SCC 398 (at page 473-476: ( (1985) 3 SCC 398 : AIR 1985 SC 1416 at pp. 1458-1460). The principles of natural justice have now come to be recognized as being a part of the Constitutional guarantee contained in Art. 14. In Tulsiram Patel's case this court said (at page 476 of SCC) (at page 1460 of AIR). The principles of natural justice have thus come to be recognized as being a partsyllegism runs thus: violation of a rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness which is the same as discrimination; where discrimination is the result of State action, it is violation of Article 14; therefore a violation of a principle of natural justice by a State action is a violation of Article 14. Article 14, however, is not the sole repository of the principles of natural justice. What it does is to guarantee that any law of State action violating them will be struck down. Article 14, however, is not the sole repository of the principles of natural justice. What it does is to guarantee that any law of State action violating them will be struck down. The principles of natural justice, however, apply not only to legislation and State action but also where any tribunal, authority or body of men, not coming with in the definition of State in Article 12, is charged with the duty of deciding a matter”. 10. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the issue. I am of the view that the notification issued by the second respondent is illegal and it is accordingly quashed. 16. The Act has created a special class of persons called “Persons having Interest”. This class has been created in recognition of the fact that the persons falling in this class have a special right and interest in the functioning and management of these Institutions. In such circumstances the principle enunciated above would squarely apply to all persons having interest and they would also have the right to be heard after notice is given to them. Accordingly, the procedure set out above, for giving notice and hearing the persons having interest, in relation to proceedings under section 43 of the Act, would apply to proceedings under Section 44 also. 17. It is true that this court is introducing a requirement of notice and opportunity to “persons having interest”, when no such provision is available. This requirement is being brought in for two reasons. Firstly, because such a lacuna in the rules can not be a ground for denying the basic principles of natural justice to persons who are interested in the management and well being of these institutions. Secondly, because the rules are at best directory and a guide for ensuring certain minimum requirements of law. Similarly, Rule 4 that states that the process has to be started only on the report of the Assistant Commissioner need not restrain the Commissioner from issuing a notice under Section 44 of the Act, when such information is given to the Commissioner from any other source. Section 44 of the Act does not lay down any such restrictions on the Commissioner. Section 44 of the Act does not lay down any such restrictions on the Commissioner. As long as the basic requirement of notice and opportunity to the affected parties is not waived, the procedure laid down in Rule 4 cannot cut down the ambit of the power of the Commissioner to undertake such registration. Any other view can result in the registration of an Institution being stymied by a procedural rule which takes away the power conferred on the Commissioner by the Statute itself. For example, there may be a situation where information is received by the Commissioner directly about an Institution which requires to be registered. It is the Commissioner, who is the authority, under section 44, who is to decide whether the institution is to be registered or not. In such a situation, referring the matter to the Assistant Commissioner to enable him to send a report for initiating the process of registration, would be a redundancy. 18. Apart from registration, all the Institutions falling within the Ambit of the Act have to be published under Section 6 of the Act, which reads as follows: 6. Preparation and publication of list of charitable and religious institutions and endowments on the basis of income:- The Commissioner shall prepare separately and publish in the prescribed manner, a list of- (a) (i) the charitable institutions and endowments ; or (ii) the religious institutions and endowments other than maths; whose annual income as calculated for the purpose of levy of contribution under Section 65 [exceed rupees twenty-five lakhs]; (b) (i) the charitable institutions and endowments; (ii) the religious institutions and endowments, other than maths; whose annual income calculated as aforesaid [exceeds rupees two lakhs but does not exceed rupees twenty-five lakhs]; (c) (i) the charitable institutions and endowments ; or (ii) the religious institutions and endowments other than maths not falling under clause (a) or clause (b); (d) the maths irrespective of the income : (e) the Dharmadayam irrespective of the income; Provided that the Commissioner may alter the classification assigned to an institution or endowment in the list and enter the same in the appropriate list in case the annual income of such institution or endowment calculated as aforesaid exceeds or falls below the limits specified in Clause (a) or Clause (b) or Clause (c) for three consecutive years. 19. 19. The above provision requires publication to be carried out, in different categories, based solely upon their annual income. This categorisation has a bearing on the supervision of the said Institutions. Under Section 8, certain functions are to be carried out by the Commissioner or Additional Commissioner in Institutions published under Section 6 (a), (d) and clause (e). Under Section 10, certain functions are to be carried out by the Deputy Commissioner, within his Division, in Institutions published under Section 6 (b). Under Section11, certain functions are to be carried out by the Assistant Commissioner, within his Sub Division, in Institutions published under Section 6 (c). The said provision does not set out any procedure for assessing the annual Income of the Institution. The provision for such assessment is contained elsewhere in the Act. 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri Divi Kodandarama Saram and Ors., Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., 1997 (6) SCC 189 while considering the question of payment of emoluments to Archakas had an occasion to consider the manner in which temples are to be categorised under Section 6 of the Endowments Act, 1987 and held as follows: 3. Section 6 of the Act classifies the charitable or religious institutions and endowments and other mutts on the basis of the income and its calculation under Section 65. Section 6(a) institutions are those whose income exceeds Rs 5 lakhs and above per annum; Section 6(b) institutions are those whose income exceeds Rs 50,000 but is less than Rs 5 lakhs; and Section 6(c) institutions are other than those covered under clauses (a) and (b)……… It would thus to be clear that the categorisation of an institution and publication of the institution under the relevant sub-section and sub-clause of Section 6 can be done only after there is an assessment of the income of the institution under Section 65 of the Act, 1987. 21. In the light of the above scheme of the Act, the registration of the Institution is to be done either under Section 43 or 44. Thereafter, the annual income of the Institution is to be assessed under various provisions of the Act. After such assessment, the Institution is to be categorised and published under Section 6 of the Act. 22. In the light of the above scheme of the Act, the registration of the Institution is to be done either under Section 43 or 44. Thereafter, the annual income of the Institution is to be assessed under various provisions of the Act. After such assessment, the Institution is to be categorised and published under Section 6 of the Act. 22. In the present case, there is no registration under Section 43 or 44 of the Act and publication under Section 6 has been taken up directly without notice being given to the Petitioners who are admittedly in management of the temple. For all these reasons the impugned orders have to be set aside. 23. The procedure to be followed for registration/publication of institutions under the Endowments Act, 1987 can be summed up as follows: (A) (i) where an application is made under Section 43(4) of the Act, 1987, the registering authority shall issue personal notice, to such persons having interest as are within the knowledge of the registering authority and also publish a notice in the local newspapers giving, all persons having interest in the institution, an opportunity to put-forth their views and objections. (ii) After affording an adequate opportunity to all such persons, the registering authority shall take a decision whether the institution has to be registered or not. If a decision is taken to register the institution, the registering authority shall register the same after filling in all the necessary details required under Section 43(4) of the Act. (B) Where the registration is carried out under Section 44 of the Act, the following procedure shall be followed: (i) The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner either suo motu or on such information that is given to him, shall give a report to the Commissioner, Endowments detailing the institution that requires to be registered and the names of the person or persons, who have failed to approach the competent Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner under Section 43 of the Act. (ii) Upon such information being given by the Assistant Commissioner, or being received from any other source, the Commissioner shall issue notices under Form-II to all persons, who are in default, to file an application for registration within the time given in the notice. (ii) Upon such information being given by the Assistant Commissioner, or being received from any other source, the Commissioner shall issue notices under Form-II to all persons, who are in default, to file an application for registration within the time given in the notice. (iii) The Commissioner shall also issue notices to all persons having interest in the institution either by way of personal notice or by way of publication of the notice in the local news papawers or both, giving opportunity to such persons to put-forth their views and objections on the aspect of registration as well as the details which are to be contained under Section 43(4) of the Act. (iv) The Trustees, persons in management and/or the persons having interest are entitled to file their objections in relation to the question of whether the said Institution is liable to be registered and/or the details that are required to be included in the register under Section 43 of the Act. They may also place such material as they deem necessary before the Commissioner. After giving adequate opportunity for all such objections to be filed, the Commissioner after considering these objections and material submitted by the objectors and after such enquiry as may be deemed fit, shall take a decision as to whether the institution is to be registered or not and the details that need to be registered under Section 43(4) of the Act. (v) In the event of the Commissioner determining that the institution requires to be registered, he shall issue directions to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to register the institution along with the details that need to be entered in the register under Section 43(4) of the Act. (vi) Upon such instructions being received, the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner shall register the institution duly entering of the details required under Section 43(4) of the Act. This process shall be done at the cost of the institution. (C) After such registration, the income of the institution is to be assessed under Section 65 of the Act, 1987. (D) Basing upon the quantum of income assessed under Section 65 of the Act, 1987, the institution is to be published by the appropriate authority on the basis of the calculation done according to the income of the institution. 24. (C) After such registration, the income of the institution is to be assessed under Section 65 of the Act, 1987. (D) Basing upon the quantum of income assessed under Section 65 of the Act, 1987, the institution is to be published by the appropriate authority on the basis of the calculation done according to the income of the institution. 24. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.J1/350/2021, dated 29.04.2021, leaving it open to the 2nd respondent to consider any further action only after issuing necessary notices to the petitioners and all such other persons having interest in the temple, by way of personal notice and by way of publication in the news paper. Any further decision taken by the Commissioner shall only be after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing, to the petitioners and persons having interest, as to why the temple should not be registered and what are the details or alterations to such details that need to be entered under Section 43(4) of the Act. 25. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.