ORDER : K. MANMADHA RAO, J This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “….to issue appropriate writ or order or direction preferably one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction and to declare the action of the 1st respondent in granting adoption without there being any material whatsoever is bad, illegal and consequently to set aside the order of adoption issued by the 1st respondent in Proceedings in Rc.No.G3/28094/2007, dated 3.8.2007 and pass….” 2. The facts of case are that Sri C.V.Reddy belongs to Vysya Community has established an Institution by name Sri CV. Reddy Charitable Trust by a Will Deed dated 24.4.1944. He donated his own properties situated in the Vijayawada City to the Trust by way of the said Will and under the Trust Deed/Will Deed, he appointed his wife and 3 others as lifetime Trustees and all of them predeceased Sri C.V. Reddy, who also died on 31.1.1981. Sri C.V. Reddy has no issues and the 1st petitioner is the son of his elder brother late Sri Ch. Kanthaiah. He filed OA No.149 of 1989 before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada (for short “the Tribunal”), for declaration as a Hereditary Trustee and the same was allowed declaring him as a Founder Trustee by an order dated 27.2.1991. While the matter stood thus, the Government has appointed an Executive Officer in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments. Though the Institution is running very well, the 2nd respondent temple who is headed by an officer of Regional Joint Commissioner has submitted a letter in Rc.No.E1/2859/2007, dated 29.6.2007 stating that Sri C.V.Reddy Charities having vast properties i.e., Godown and shops and they required reconstruction. Even if the reconstruction is done, that may not fetch the Institution in a profitable manner and as the 2nd respondent’s temple is interested to take the landed properties and the fixed deposit amount of Rs.28 Lakhs. The 2nd respondent temple also given undertaking that the amount of Rs.28 Lakhs will be deposited in the name of Sir C.V. Reddy Charities and it will continue to fulfill the objects of the Donor. The 2nd respondent temple also given undertaking that the amount of Rs.28 Lakhs will be deposited in the name of Sir C.V. Reddy Charities and it will continue to fulfill the objects of the Donor. But without calling report from the District Officer and without taking consent from the Trustees of the Institution, the 1st respondent approved the proposal of adoption and directed the 2nd respondent to administer the adopted temple treating that the C.V Reddy Charities is in a poor financial position. The action of the 1st respondent in giving adoption without hearing the Trustees and without looking into the financial status is bad. The adoption order issued by the 1st respondent is bad in law and cannot be sustainable. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. While denying the allegations made in the petition, contended that, the Board of Trustees of the subject Institution has passed a resolution on 12.04.2008 and resolved, that the orders of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad passed in D.Disc.G3/28094/07, implement the same dated 03.08.2007. They further resolved to as the wholesale Iron business was shifted to Market Yard, Bhavanipuram from I Town, and some of the tenants are vacated from the godowns and handed over the same to the subject institution and in spite of the auctions conducted by the subject institution, nobody have come forward to participate in public auction for the lease of the Shops and Godowns and since the subject institution is in a poor financial position, it is better to give the said institution for adoption to the 2nd Respondent i.e., Sri Durga Malleswaraswamyvarla Devasthanam for better management and also for the development of the institution and that the movable and immovable properties of subject institution, including the working staff and the immoveable property of an extent of 1276.9 sq. yards including the structures therein to be handed over to the 2nd Respondent herein. The Trust Board has also resolved to handover the deposit amount of Rs.28, 32, 320/- to the 2nd Respondent in the shape of FDRs with a request to fulfill the objects of the Donor and further requested the 2nd Respondent Devasthanam not to encash the said Deposits. 4. The Trust Board has also resolved to handover the deposit amount of Rs.28, 32, 320/- to the 2nd Respondent in the shape of FDRs with a request to fulfill the objects of the Donor and further requested the 2nd Respondent Devasthanam not to encash the said Deposits. 4. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the 2nd Respondent has fulfilled the objects of the donor and the Executive Officer of the Institution has spent an amount of Rs.31,500/-, towards scholarships, Rs.73,610/- for poor feeding and on donors day spent an amount of Rs.27,000/- towards scholarships for veda students, an amount of 500 /- towards Sangeetha Bharatanatyam, Rs,15,000/-for arrangement of meals to poor students on donors day and further they spent Rs.30,000/- for arrangement of meals to poor students on donors day in the year 2007-2008. It is further stated that the 2nd Respondent has also spent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and odd towards the fulfill the objects of the Donor in the year 2008-2009. Thus the allegations made by the Writ Petitioner that the 2nd Respondent is not even giving scholarships etc., are not true and correct and is only invented for the purpose of filing Writ Petition. It is further stated that since the structures godowns of the subject Institution are in dilapidated condition, the 2nd Respondent has decided to dismantle the old structures and to construct a new building in the same place to get more benefit to the subject institution to fulfill the objects of the donor. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent issued notices to all the tenants and requested them to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the property to the 2nd respondent herein as the building is in dilapidated condition. But some of the tenants have approached this Court questioning the demand of the 2nd respondent then this Court has allowed the said writ petitions and directed the 2nd respondent to follow the procedure for eviction of the writ petitioners. Further, it is stated that, the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad has issued proceedings in D.DisNo.G2/23781/2009 dated 19.06.2009 duly granted permission for dismantling the structures and accorded permission to sell the wood and steel in public auction in the presence of a Committee constituted by 2nd respondent. Further, it is stated that, the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad has issued proceedings in D.DisNo.G2/23781/2009 dated 19.06.2009 duly granted permission for dismantling the structures and accorded permission to sell the wood and steel in public auction in the presence of a Committee constituted by 2nd respondent. Accordingly the 2nd respondent constituted a Committee consisting of five (5) officials and the same was intimated to all the members of the Committee vide Rc.No.E1/1135/09, dated 20.06.2009 and accordingly the Committee conducted tender-cum-auction on 27.7.2009 and the highest bidder was declared and the same was informed to the Commissioner for approval. It is further stated that the allegations made by the writ petitioner are not true and correct and the writ petitioner has no locus standi to file writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. This Court, vide order, dated 04.12.2023 in I.A No.1 of 2023 has added the proposed 2nd petitioner as 2nd petitioner in the main writ petition. 5. Heard Sri D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri V.Venugopal Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt.P.Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. On hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition submits that the action of the 1st respondent normally may not have any objection to the petitioner as in the place of one Executive Officer in the cadre of Regional Joint Commissioner and the same objects of his paternal uncle can be continued. Learned counsel further submits that the 2nd respondent has not even giving the Scholarship etc., as was done in earlier and by his action, the entire objects of the Donor is going to be defeated. The 2nd respondent is planning to convert the Charities into that of Choultry and Guest Houses. At that time, the 1st petitioner has filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments to declare the 1st petitioner as a Member of Founder’s family. But the 2nd respondent has influenced the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments and stating that once an adoption took place, both the Institutions are treated to be a single Institution, only to avoid the check of members from the Founder. But the 2nd respondent has influenced the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments and stating that once an adoption took place, both the Institutions are treated to be a single Institution, only to avoid the check of members from the Founder. Learned counsel further submits that the 2nd respondent temple, who is headed by an Officer of Regional Joint Commissioner has submitted a letter in Rc.No.E1/2859/2007, dated 29.6.2007 stating that the Sri C.V.Reddy Charities having vast properties and they required reconstruction and that as the 2nd respondent’s temple is interested to take the landed properties, it will be helpful to the 2nd respondent temple for providing Dormitories and Guest House. He mainly submits that without calling for a report from the District Officer and without taking any consent from the Trustees of the Institution, the 1st respondent adopted the proposal of adoption and directed the 2nd respondent to administer the adopted temple treating that the C.V Reddy Charities is in a poor financial position, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that after demise of the 1st petitioner, the proposed 2nd petitioner, who is the son of the 1st petitioner came on record and he filed O.A No.203 of 2011 before the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati at Pedakakani seeking to declare him as a member of the founder family of Sri C.V.Reddy Charities, Vijayawada. After considering the material on record and after perusing all the evidence the Tribunal observed that Sri C.V.Reddy himself was not recognized as the only founder of the institution and that during the lifetime of the members of the management committee of the Institution including Sri C.V.Reddy have not appointed their nominees to represent them in the committee as envisaged by the Will of Sri C.V.Reddy. The Assistant Commissioner had appointed the father of the petitioner as a founder family member without considering the requisites of a person to be declared as such. Therefore it was held that the petitioner is not eligible to be declared/ recognized as a member of the founder family for the subject institution and accordingly dismissed the said O.A. vide order dated 07.08.2019. Therefore it was held that the petitioner is not eligible to be declared/ recognized as a member of the founder family for the subject institution and accordingly dismissed the said O.A. vide order dated 07.08.2019. Learned counsel further submits that, aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal, the 2nd petitioner herein preferred an appeal vide CMA No.81 of 2024 before this Court with a delay of 1533 days in filing the CMA and this Court has ordered Notice to the respondents on 27.2.2024 and the same is pending consideration. 8. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents while denying the contents made by the petitioner, reiterated the contents made in the counter affidavit. He submits that the present writ petition becomes infructuous and the petitioner is not entitled to seek a declaration that the action of the 1st Respondent in granting adoption and consequently to set aside the order of adoption issued by it in its proceedings in Rc.No.G3/28094/2007, dated 03.08.2007, since, the said proceedings have already been implemented by the 2nd Respondent. He submits that, in pursuance of the approval of the 1st respondent, number of works have been taken up and completed in accordance with the directions in the proceedings dated 03.08.2007. Therefore the present Writ petition is belated and the same is not entertained at this stage, as directions given in the proceedings in Rc.No.G3/28094/2007, dated 03.08.2007 have already been carried out by the 2nd Respondent and the petitioner is not entitled to seek for suspension of the operation of the order of adoption issued by the 1st respondent, dated 03.08.2007 and consequently the petition has no merits and the same is deserves to be dismissed. 9. On hearing the submissions, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd petitioner herein hails from the family of the founders and all the records indicate that the petitioner’s family hails from the family of founders. The 1st petitioner who is father of the 2nd petitioner was also declared as a hereditary trustee of the subject institution. So, by virtue of the petitioner’s father being declared as a hereditary trustee of the 2nd respondent institution, it is an undisputed fact that the 2nd petitioner herein also is entitled to succeed his father in line of succession as a founder trustee. So, by virtue of the petitioner’s father being declared as a hereditary trustee of the 2nd respondent institution, it is an undisputed fact that the 2nd petitioner herein also is entitled to succeed his father in line of succession as a founder trustee. It is also contended that the District Court had recognized the father of the 2nd petitioner as a legal heir of Sri C.V. Reddy. 10. Further, it is the contention of the respondent counsel that Sri C.V.Reddy has not adopted any person during his lifetime or nominated anybody to succeed the estate left by him including the founder family member trustee. It is also the contention of the respondents counsel that in pursuance of the proceedings dated 3.8.2007, number of works have already been taken up and completed in accordance with the directions in the proceedings. Further, this writ petition is filed at belated stage and the same is not entertained at this stage as the directions given in the said proceedings have already been carried out by the 2nd respondent. Moreover the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. 11. As seen from the impugned proceedings dated 3.8.2007, wherein, the Commissioner, Endowments Department approves the proposal for adoption of the said Sri C.V. Reddy Charities, Vijayawada, Krishna District by Sri Durga MalleswaraSwamyvarla Devasthanam, Vijayawada is exercise of the powers vested under Section 145(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987 (for short “the Act 30/87”). It was also mentioned that “he is also requested to watch the progress in the financial position of the temple and report when it becomes self sustained as per Section 145(2) of the Act 30/87”. 12. It is pertinent to mention here the Section 145 (1) to (3) of the Act, reads as under: 145. It was also mentioned that “he is also requested to watch the progress in the financial position of the temple and report when it becomes self sustained as per Section 145(2) of the Act 30/87”. 12. It is pertinent to mention here the Section 145 (1) to (3) of the Act, reads as under: 145. Adoption or amalgamation of institutions and endowments – (1) Where the Commissioner has reason to believe that any religion institution is not capable of maintaining out of its funds, he may, in the interest of proper management of administration, subject to such restrictions and conditions as he may deem fit, direct the amalgamation or as the case may be, the adoption of such religious institution by any other religious institution having similar objects and capable of managing such institution and there upon the trustee of the institution to which it is amalgamated or by which it is adopted shall maintain and administer such institution. 1[Provided that the conditions to be satisfied for any such adoption or amalgamation shall be as may be prescribed.] (2) On such amalgamation or adoption the institutions shall be deemed to comprise a single institution and administered as if they were a single institution published under section 6. (3) Where the institution so amalgamated or as the case may be adopted under sub-section (1), subsequently found to be capable of being managed by itself, the Commissioner may in the interest of proper management of administration, revoke the orders issued under sub-section (1), and thereupon the institution shall manage its affairs independently out of its funds. 13. On a perusal of the above, in the present case, the 2nd petitioner has added as legal heir of the 1st petitioner and he filed OA No.203 of 2011 before the A.P. Endowments Tribunal seeking to declare him as a member of the founder’s family of Sri C.V. Reddy Charities. But the same was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 7.8.2019. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal vide CMA No.81 of 2024 with delay of 1533 days in filing appeal before this Court. In the said case, notice was ordered and the same is pending. Since the declaration of Member of the founder’s family issue is pending before this Court, the petitioner has no locus standi to question the adoption or amalgamation proceedings. In the said case, notice was ordered and the same is pending. Since the declaration of Member of the founder’s family issue is pending before this Court, the petitioner has no locus standi to question the adoption or amalgamation proceedings. The petitioner can challenge the same subject to result of the appeal vide CMA No.81 of 2024 which is pending before this Court. 14. Moreover as per Section 145(1) the Commissioner may in the interest of proper management of administration direct the amalgamation or adoption of such religious institution by any other religious institution having similar objects and capable of managing such institution to which or by which it is adopted shall maintain and administer such institution. Therefore, viewed from any angle, there is no merit in the instant writ petition and devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner succeeds in the appeal in CMA No.81 of 2024 that he is declared as a member of the Founder’s family, then he will take recourse under Section 145(3) of the Act. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.