JUDGMENT 1. Assailing the proceedings in Rc.No.E2/15021/307/2021 dtd. 22/3/2022 issued by respondent No.2/Commissioner, Endowments Department, appointing Executive Officer to Sri Moola Peddamma Devatha Temple, W. Govindinne, Dornipadu Mandal, Kurnool District, the above writ petition is filed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Sri Moola Peddamma Devatha Temple, W. Govindinne, Dornipadu Mandal, Kurnool District (hereinafter referred to 'the Temple'), is an ancient Temple, existing from more than 400 years. Temple possesses agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3-50 cents in survey No.373/C. Lease amount from the agricultural lands and Hundi collections are the main source of income. Petitioners are committee members. b) While the matter stood thus, respondent No.3, Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kurnool, by letter N.Dis.No.A2/7207/14 dtd. 11/12/2014 instructed the Inspector, Endowments Department to conduct enquiry basing on the complaint. Accordingly, Inspector, Endowments Department, Banaganapalli submitted report dtd. 26/1/2015 to respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 vide proceedings Rc.No.E1/11206/2015 dtd. 17/6/2015 tagged the Temple to respondent No.4 for administration and management. Based upon the proceedings of respondent No.2, respondent No.3 issued memo A2/1523/2015-Adm, dtd. 26/6/2015 and communicated a copy to the petitioners as well as respondent No.4. Challenging the proceedings dtd. 17/6/2015 issued by respondent No.2, petitioners filed W.P.No.24605 of 2015 and the said writ petition was allowed on 4/10/2021, setting aside the proceedings dtd. 17/6/2015, of respondent No.2. However, it was left open to respondent No.2 to consider the issue afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. b) Thereafter respondent No.2, vide telephonic message dtd. 9/3/2022 called for report of the Temple, from respondent No.3. Respondent No.3, in turn, by way of telephonic message dtd. 9/3/2022 sought for report from respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 vide letter No.1175 dtd. 9/3/2022 submitted report to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3, in turn, vide letter No.A2/1523/2015 dtd. 10/3/2022 submitted report to respondent No.2 reiterating the information furnished by respondent No.4, basing on which respondent No.2 vide proceedings in Rc.No.E2/15201/307/2021, dtd. 22/3/2022, appointed Executive Officer to the Temple. Aggrieved by the same above writ petition is filed. 3. a) Separate counter affidavits were filed on behalf of respondent No.2 and 3 with similar averments. It was contended inter alia, that the Temple is an ancient Temple, published as per serial No.2470 under Sec. 6 (c) (ii) vide R.D.S.No.J3/28397/1990. Temple owns Ac.4-35 cents of land in survey No.373/2c and also has ten rooms which were constructed in the premises of the Temple, with the help of donors. It was contended inter alia, that the Temple is an ancient Temple, published as per serial No.2470 under Sec. 6 (c) (ii) vide R.D.S.No.J3/28397/1990. Temple owns Ac.4-35 cents of land in survey No.373/2c and also has ten rooms which were constructed in the premises of the Temple, with the help of donors. The income of the Temple during the year, 2014, as per the report submitted by the then Executive Officer of respondent No.4, is Rs.17, 80, 000.00. b) Based upon the instructions of respondent No.2/commissioner, respondent No.3 sought for report from respondent No.4, who, in turn, forwarded report, which was made in the year, 2014-15. Respondent No.3, in turn, forwarded the same to respondent No.2 on 10/3/2022. On considering the report, respondent No.2 felt it appropriate to appoint Executive Officer to the Temple and accordingly issued proceeding impugned in this writ petition. c) Petitioners, self-declared committee, have been utilizing the income derived from movable and immovable properties of the Temple, for their personal needs. Petitioners have no locus-standi to file the writ petition. Respondent No.2 got jurisdiction and authority under Sec. 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions, Endowments Act, 30 of 1987 (for short 'the Act'), to appoint Executive Officer. No accounts are maintained and the entire income is being apportioned among the petitioners. Petitioners are conducting auction for selling tickets to private parties and the said amount is being transferred to their personal grounds. Respondent No.2 appointed Executive Officer for better administration of the Temple. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Respondent No.4, Executive Officer filed separate counter affidavit reiterating averments made in the counter affidavit of respondent No.3. It was further contended that five Archakas are performing Archakatvam. Two Clerks, two Attenders, four Sweepers and one Watchman were working in the Temple. Presently, except the sweepers, services of all other staff were disengaged by the Archakas. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and G. Ramana Rao, learned standing counsel for respondent No.4. 6. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that the Commissioner, without application of mind to the fact situation appointed Executive Officer. 5. Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and G. Ramana Rao, learned standing counsel for respondent No.4. 6. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that the Commissioner, without application of mind to the fact situation appointed Executive Officer. He would also submit that in the first round of litigation when Executive Officer was appointed in 2015, W.P.No.24608 of 2015 was filed and the same was allowed setting aside the proceedings dtd. 17/6/2015. However, Court left it open to the Commissioner to consider the issue afresh and pass appropriate orders. Learned Senior Counsel, while not disputing, power of the Commissioner under Sec. 29 of the Act to appoint Executive Officer, would contend that the proceedings issued, appointing Executive Officer does not contain reasons as mandated under second proviso to Sec. 29 of the Act. Thus, learned Senior Counsel would contend that the proceedings impugned are liable to be set aside. 7. Learned Government Pleader as well as learned standing counsel on the other hand, would contend that petitioners have no locus-standi to file the writ petition. They would contend that in the first round of litigation, learned Single Judge while setting aside the order of Commissioner, left it open, to the Commissioner to consider the issue afresh and pass appropriate orders. They contended that petitioners are not accounting the income and the Commissioner, based upon the report forwarded by Deputy Commissioner, which was submitted by Executive Officer, Koilakuntla-II Temples, appointed Executive Officer. They contended that procedure was followed. Thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. The point for consideration is whether the proceedings of the Commissioner in RC.No.E2/15021/307/2021 dtd. 22/3/2022 suffers from illegality and non-application of mind? If so, proceedings are liable to be set aside? 9. As seen from the proceedings and material available on record, in the first round of litigation, initially Executive Officer was appointed vide Rc.No.E1/11206/2015, dtd. 17/6/2015 by the Deputy Commissioner in the absence of the Commissioner. Admittedly the Temple in question has been published under Sec. 6(c) of the Act. If so, proceedings are liable to be set aside? 9. As seen from the proceedings and material available on record, in the first round of litigation, initially Executive Officer was appointed vide Rc.No.E1/11206/2015, dtd. 17/6/2015 by the Deputy Commissioner in the absence of the Commissioner. Admittedly the Temple in question has been published under Sec. 6(c) of the Act. Sec. 29 of the Act mandates that in case of an institution, where income is Rs.2, 00, 000.00 the Commissioner of Endowments, in the interest of better administration of the institution or for the reasons to be recorded in writing, is competent to appoint Executive Officer. 10. W.P.No.24605 of 2015, filed earlier, impugning the proceedings issued by respondent No.2, appointing Executive Officer, was allowed on 4/10/2021, setting aside the said proceedings. Subsequently, Commissioner sent telephonic message to the Deputy Commissioner, on 9/3/2022 and called for report regarding the subject Temple. Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, in turn, directed the Executive Officer, Koilakuntla Group II Temple to submit report. This is clear from the report of Executive Officer of Koilakuntla Group II Temple dtd. 9/3/2022. 11. As seen from the report submitted by Executive Officer to the Deputy Commissioner, it discerns that the said officer, based upon telephonic instructions received at 2:00 P.M. on 9/3/2022, enquired Archakas and villagers. As per the information secured, the Temple owns Ac.4-35 cents of land and ten rooms, constructed by the donors. Tickets are being sold in respect of darshan and poojas. On auspicious days, devotees offer rice and votive offerings. The archakas are selling away hair as well as coconuts. The report further discloses that the Temple gets income of Rs.1, 00, 000.00, Rs.2, 50, 000.00, Rs.5, 00, 000.00, Rs.3, 00, 000.00, Rs.3, 00, 000.00, Rs.1, 00, 000.00, Rs.80, 000.00 Rs.1, 00, 000.00 per annum from lands, ten rooms, Hundi, coconuts, by way of tickets, tonsuring hair from rice and towards other income respectively. Thus, according to the report, the total income that may derive is Rs.17, 80, 000.00 per annum. 12. Report further discloses that five archakas are rendering archakatvam services. For the purpose of selling tickets and maintenance of Temple duties, two Clerks, two Attenders, four Sweepers, one watchman were appointed. The salary expenditure for the employees excluding archakas, is Rs.5, 16, 000.00. On auspicious occasions, further amount of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 will be derived. Thus, the total income comes to Rs.7, 16, 000.00. For the purpose of selling tickets and maintenance of Temple duties, two Clerks, two Attenders, four Sweepers, one watchman were appointed. The salary expenditure for the employees excluding archakas, is Rs.5, 16, 000.00. On auspicious occasions, further amount of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 will be derived. Thus, the total income comes to Rs.7, 16, 000.00. Remaining amount will be distributed among five archakas. 13. The said report was, in turn, submitted by Deputy Commissioner to the Commissioner on 10/3/2022. In the report submitted by Deputy Commissioner to the Commissioner, it was mentioned about the salaries being paid to the staff i.e. Rs.10, 000.00 each to the Clerks, Rs.5, 000.00 to the attender, Rs.2000.00 each the Sweepers and Rs.5, 000.00 to the watchman. The names of five archakas are also mentioned. 14. As can be seen from the proceedings impugned respondent No.2, the Commissioner has mentioned regarding selling of various seva tickets by the petitioners, without any permission from the competent authorities and in the circumstances reported by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kurnool and Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department and in the interest of better administration of the institution, appointed Executive Officer. 15. It is pertinent to mention here that as seen from the report submitted by the Executive Officer, the income assessed by the Executive Officer is probable but not certain. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4, the authorities contended that the income of Rs, 17, 80, 000/- of the Temple, is the income for the year, 2014. However, the proceedings do not indicate the same. 16. Thus, this court is of the considered opinion that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are improving the case by filing counter affidavit, which is not mentioned in the proceedings impugned. The authorities cannot improve the case by way of counter affidavit and it is contrary to the law laid down in Mohinder Singh Gill Vs Chief Election Officer, New Delhi, (1978)1 SCC 405 . wherein it was held as under: 8. .. when the statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented. 17. Apart from the aforementioned reports, along with memo vide USR No.100420/2023 dtd. 29/9/2023, the statements of villagers were filed. As seen from the statements of the year, 2014, the income of the Temple during that period is Rs.9, 00, 000.00 on various heads. 17. Apart from the aforementioned reports, along with memo vide USR No.100420/2023 dtd. 29/9/2023, the statements of villagers were filed. As seen from the statements of the year, 2014, the income of the Temple during that period is Rs.9, 00, 000.00 on various heads. In the counter affidavit, for the reasons best known, the authorities gave a different version qua the income. 18. There is no dispute regarding power of the Commissioner to appoint Executive Officer. However, in case of the institution of Sec. 6(c) where the income is Rs.2, 00, 000.00, Commissioner must record reasons for appointment of Executive Officer. Reasons, as seen from the proceedings impugned, according to this Court, are that the report of Assistant Commissioner about the archakas selling various seva tickets and the report, dtd. 9/3/2022 submitted by the Deputy Commissioner. 19. As per the report of the Executive Officer, if really, Temple is getting income more than Rs.2, 00, 000.00, the authorities would have changed the classification of the Temple from Sec. 6(c) (ii) to other classification. As discussed supra, according to counter affidavit the income is more than Rs.17.00 lakhs in the year 2014 itself. 20. While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, normally, will not act as appellate authority. This Court will peruse as to whether the authority acted in accordance with law or not. To appoint an Executive Officer, the report dtd. 9/3/2022, submitted by Executive Officer to the Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner's report to the Commissioner, dtd. 9/3/2022 and 10/3/2022 were considered. Regarding the income of the temple of Rs.17, 80, 000.00 per year, as seen from the report, the officer visited the temple on one day and enquired archakas and villagers and arrived at the quantum. As stated supra, in the report of Executive officer, it was referred as probable. However, when it comes to the proceedings, impugned, it was mentioned that the temple is getting Rs.17, 80, 000.00 per year. 21. In the considered opinion of this court, no proper enquiry was conducted qua the income of the temple. The allegation is that the petitioners are utilizing the money after expending little. The process adopted to arrive at the income, in the opinion of this court, is not appropriate and is against basic principles of conducting enquiry. Even the Commissioner did not look into these aspects while appointing executive officer. The allegation is that the petitioners are utilizing the money after expending little. The process adopted to arrive at the income, in the opinion of this court, is not appropriate and is against basic principles of conducting enquiry. Even the Commissioner did not look into these aspects while appointing executive officer. This court is not recording any finding that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction or authority to appoint Executive Officer. However, the order impugned lacks reasons and application of mind by the Commissioner, to the facts of the case at hand. As discussed supra, the Commissioner solely based upon the reports submitted, appointed Executive Officer without recording reasons objectively. 22. In view of the discussion supra, the proceedings impugned, suffers from illegality and non-application of mind. Therefore, the writ petition needs to be allowed. 23. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed setting aside proceedings in RC.No.E2/15021/307/2021 dtd. 22/3/2022 issued by respondent No.2. 24. It is made clear that this order will not preclude the authorities to consider issue in accordance with law. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.