ORDER : K. Manmadha Rao, J. WP No.39248 of 2016 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief : “…. to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certorari call for the records and quash the order in proceeding Rc No D3/ 16564/2014, dt.28.10.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent declaring the same as one without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the proceedings of 4th respondent vide Rc No A4/6823/2014, dt.04.10.2016 appointing single trustee to the temples (1) Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Samatha Venkateswara Swamy Temple (2) Sri Sitaramanjaneya Swamy Temple, is illegal, arbitrary, and direct the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on our representations dt.28.04.2014 and 23.06.2014 forthwith and pass…” WP No.8871 of 2024 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief : “….to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for the records and quash the order in proceeding Rc.No.D2/COE14021 42/1/2024, dt.10.04.2024 passed by the 3rd respondent in the name of 2nd respondent knowing fully well the pendency of the writ petition WP No 39248 of 2016 declaring the same as illegal arbitrary and highhanded and consequently set aside the proceedings of the 3rd respondent appointing single trustee to the temples (1) Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Samatha Venkateswara Swamy Temple (2) Sri Sitaramanjaneya Swamy Temple and pass…” 2. As the issue involved in both the writ petitions and the writ petitioner in both the writ petitions is also one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the Secretary of the Petitioner's Samithi and that the said Samithi Lakshmi Sametha constructed Padmavathi Venkateswara Swamy Temple at Gorantla and the said temple was constructed without any grant from Endowments Department and the said temple is maintained by the villagers who are the members of petitioner samithi without any complaint whatsoever from any quarters. Infact in the said premises there are two temples: (1) Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Sametha Venkateswara Swamy Temple, (2) Sri Sitaramanjaneya Swamy Temple. Infact in the said premises there are two temples: (1) Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Sametha Venkateswara Swamy Temple, (2) Sri Sitaramanjaneya Swamy Temple. The said Sitaramanjaneya Temple was under the Endowments Department and during the period of earlier Chairman/President of the Committee the Endowments Department has handed over the charge of the temple to the Committee for maintenance as the earlier President in the guise of renovation of the said temple misused the funds of the Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Venkateswara Samatha Swamy Temple, as such, he was removed and the present committee has taken over the charge, created funds from the known persons and also spent its own funds to a tune of Rs.40 Lakhs and developed the said Sitaramanjaneya Swamy Temple. It is further stated that the petitioner is maintaining the said temples more particularly Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Venkateswara Samatha Swamy Temple which has huge funds with great devotion to the satisfaction of one and all including the respondent department. While the things stood thus, the Endowments Department handed over the above said temples to Sri Vidyaranya Swamy and Sri Hampi Virupaksha Vidyaranya Mahasansthan, Hampi vide Proceedings Memo.No.D2/22397/ 2009, dt.07.05.2010 and D.Dis.No.H1/30068/2010, dated 28.08.2010, but subsequently on the representation of the petitioner Devasthanam dated 09.03.2011, the above two temples were withdrawn from the management of Sri Vidyaranya Swamy and Sri Hampi Virupaksha Vidyaranya Mahasansthan, Hampi, while executing the same from the purview of the act and handed over to the petitioner samithi for a period of 3 years vide proceedings Memo No.20905/Endts.IV(1)/2011 of the 1st respondent dated 24.09.2011. The said 3 years period got expired by 23.09.2014, but before the expiry of the said 3 years period, the petitioner Devasthanam has submitted representations dated 28.04.2014 and 23.06.2014 requesting the respondent authorities to extend period of exemption for another term of 3 years and the said representations are pending and the petitioners have also come to know that the respondents 2 to 4 have also sent reports to the 1st respondent to extend period of exemption. Pending the same, the 4th respondent vide proceedings in R.C.No.A4/6823/2014, dt.01.06.2016 has appointed a single trustee to take immediate charge of the said temples. Assailing the same the petitioner filed W.P.No.22585/2016 before this Hon'ble Court stating that appointment of Single Trustee pending petitioner’ representation is bad hence sought for a direction to the respondent's therein to pass orders on the representation. Assailing the same the petitioner filed W.P.No.22585/2016 before this Hon'ble Court stating that appointment of Single Trustee pending petitioner’ representation is bad hence sought for a direction to the respondent's therein to pass orders on the representation. The said W.P. was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court on 13.07.2016 directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the said direction, the 2nd respondent herein vide proceeding Rc.No.D3/16564/2014, dated 28.10.2016 passed orders rejecting the representation for extension of period of exemption and further directed the 4th respondent herein to see that the Single Trustee already appointed to the above two temples shall take complete charge of the management temples. Challenging the impugned proceedings dated 28.10.2016, the WP No.39248 of 2016 has been filed. 4. This Court vide order dated 15.11.2016 has directed both parties to maintain status quo in WP No.39248 of 2016. 5. During pendency of the above writ petition, the extension of 3 years period got expired by 23.9.2014, but before the expiry of the said 3 extended subsequently till the end of Covid-19 2022. It is further stated that the filing of vacate petitions itself is an indication that there is an interim order in favour of the petitioner but the respondents for the reasons best known to them on extraneous source of pressure knowing fully well that the writ petition is still pending on 10.04.2024 passed an order of appointing a Single Trustee to take over the management of the temples forthwith. The single trust who was appointed under the said order i.e., on 12.4.2024 the 2nd respondent visited the temple and tried to take the charge of the temple which the petitioner Devasthanam has resisted. Aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in appointing a single trustee in a temple pending the WP No.39248 of 2016 is illegal and arbitrary. Hence WP No.8871 of 2024 came to be filed. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.4 in WP No.39248 of 2016. Aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in appointing a single trustee in a temple pending the WP No.39248 of 2016 is illegal and arbitrary. Hence WP No.8871 of 2024 came to be filed. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.4 in WP No.39248 of 2016. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, subsequent to completion of the said period of 3 years extension i.e. 24.09.2014, the petitioner made an application for extension of the said period of management of the said temples and subsequently approached the Hon'ble Court, by filing the W.P.No.22585/2016, and the Hon'ble Court disposed the said writ petition as per orders dated 13.07.2016 directing the 2nd respondent, Commissioner, Endowments Department., A.P. to consider the representations dated 28.04.2014 and 23.06.2014 of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. In pursuance of the said instructions of the Hon'ble Court, the 2nd respondent got enquired into the matter on the representations made by the petitioner by calling for the reports from the concerned Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department. Guntur, Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur and the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Multi Zone-2, Tirupati and in which the 2nd respondent found that the petitioner is not maintaining proper record for both the temples under their management and the offerings given by the pilgrims by way of cash/ornaments etc. and the petitioner sangham altered the nature of the agricultural land of Ac.1-00cents in survey No.53/1B of Gorantla belongs to Sri Seetharama Swamy Temple, Gorantla into commercial activity by taking constructions for promoting businesses as per their will and wish without taking any prior permission from the Department and without there being any sanction of plans and estimates and that the team of persons who are appointed by the Department who verify the records were not provided the records by the petitioner sangham under one pretext or other and also failed to submit annual statutory returns of income and expenditure and also failed to pay the statutory payments to be made and failed to follow the rules and procedures as prescribed under the Act 30/87. In view of the said findings, the 2nd respondent herein issued instructions to the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur to take immediate action for taking over the management of Sri Seetharama Swamy Temple, Gorantla along with it's properties etc. including the above mentioned Ac.1-00 cents of land wherein unauthorized constructions were made by the petitioner for converting the same into commercial activity and to be kept the said temple and it's properties under the control of the departmental person by 2nd respondent vide R.C.No.D3/16564/2014-2, dated 28-01-2016. Accordingly, this respondent has appointed Sri J. Hanuman Reddy, Executive Officer, Kothapet Group Temples, Guntur City, as Single trustee to Sri Seetharam Swamy temple, Gorantia, Guntur City, vide proceedings in Rc.No.A4/6823/2014, dated 01-06-2016. 7. The Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.7. It is submitted that the petitioner readily agreed for the said proposal and accordingly commissioner issued order dated 7/05/2010 in respect of Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Sametha Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple and order dated 28/08/2010 in respect of Sri Seetha Ramanjaneya Swamy temple for handing over the management of the said temples to Sri Hampi Veerupaksha Vidyaranya Maha Samastanam (Hampi Peetham). It is relevant to submit that after management of the temple was handed over and Sri Hampi Veerupaksha Vidyaranya Maha Samastanam (Hampi Peetham) constituted a committee consisting of 7 members including this respondent and these temples were managed through the aforesaid committee. While so, the petitioner samithi made an application to withdraw the earlier orders dated 7.05.2010 and 28.08.2010 stating that the Sri Hampi Veerupaksha Vidyaranya Maha Samastanam (Hampi Peetham) to whom the management is entrusted is not managing properly. Accordingly, 1st Respondent issued memo dated 24.09.2011 directing the commissioner 2nd respondent herein to revoke the orders of Commissioner dt. 7/05/2010 and 28/08/2010 and accordingly the said memo's were withdrawn and management of the both the temples was entrusted to the Petitioner Samithi for a period of 3 years. The allegation that the petitioner is maintaining the temples with great devotion and to the satisfaction of one and all is not correct. It is further submitted that Sri Arunachalam Manikyavel who is shown as secretary is suffering from serious health issues relating to functioning of lungs and is not able to visit the temple at all and he has been undergoing treatment by staying at home. It is further submitted that Sri Arunachalam Manikyavel who is shown as secretary is suffering from serious health issues relating to functioning of lungs and is not able to visit the temple at all and he has been undergoing treatment by staying at home. It is submitted that some disgruntled elements have been managing the temple and have been misusing the funds and properties of the temples and also apart from that they are indulging in unsocial activities within the premises of the temple. Therefore, competent authority appointed a single trustee having not been satisfied by the management of the Petitioner Samithi and the present writ petition is filed challenging appointment of single trustee though stay was granted for a limited period same was not extended thereafter the single trustee have taken the charge and have been managing the affairs of the temples as such the writ petition become infructuous. It is also relevant to submit that the representations submitted by the petitioner were already rejected by passing an order duly considering the representations of the petitioner as per the order of this Hon'ble court passed in W.P.No.22585 of 2016. Therefore, there is no substance raised by the petitioner in the grounds and hence prayed to dismiss the writ petitions. 8. Heard Sri N. Ashwin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior counsel representing Sri G. Sridhar, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents and Smt. P. Padmavathi, learned Standing counsels appearing for the respondents. 9. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, contended that, the 5th respondent who is the ground level officer having knowledge of the affairs of the temple has submitted report stating that the petitioner committee is capable of maintaining the temple on its own and there are no complaints against the committee of the temple in running the temples and infact recommended for further extension and curiously since the said report is in favour of the petitioner, the Commissioner brushed aside the same stating that the report of the 5th respondent does not reveal the correct facts and instead relied on the report of the 3rd respondent and rejected the petitioner’s application. He submits that under Section 154 of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987, it is the 1st respondent, who is competent to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to pass orders either for extending the exemption or rejecting. He can only forward report for extension or rejection to the 1st respondent. He further submits that infact for the past 5 years the petitioner samithi is maintaining the two temples to the outmost satisfaction of the department and also the villagers and appointing single trustee without notice to petitioner samithi is bad. He further submits that the 2nd respondent ought to have seen that Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Sametha Venkateshwara Swamy funds is developed by the petitioner committee from the funds of the first temple and the endowments department never made any efforts to develop the same and ought to have considered the representation of the petitioner for extension of exemption period. He further submits that the 3rd and 4th respondents herein have never visited nor inspected the records of the temple and the alleged reports submitted by them is on the basis of the enquiry which they have conducted behind the back of the petitioner, which is clear violation of principles of natural justice and on this ground also the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that while passing impugned proceedings, no notice or no opportunity has been given to the petitioner which is in violation of principles of natural justice. 10. Insofar as WP No.8871 of 2024 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, filing the vacate stay petitions itself is an indication that there is an interim order in favour of the petitioner but the respondents for the reasons best known to them on extraneous source of pressure knowing fully well that the writ petition is still pending on 10.4.2024, passed an order appointing a Single trustee to take over the management of the temple forthwith in pursuance of the same, a single trustee who was appointed, visited the temple and tried to take the charge of the temple which the petitioner has resisted. Though interim order is subsisting in WP No.39248 of 2016, the 2nd respondent has issued impugned order appointing a single trustee in temple, is illegal and arbitrary. Though interim order is subsisting in WP No.39248 of 2016, the 2nd respondent has issued impugned order appointing a single trustee in temple, is illegal and arbitrary. Further, while passing impugned order, the respondents have not followed principles of natural justice. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court dated 25.10.2021 passed in WP No.11011 of 2013, wherein it was observed that : 7. Similarly, the 3rd issue as to whether this is an institution which will get the benefit of G.O.Nos.1098 Revenue (Endowments.I) department, dated 11.09.2008 on the ground that it is an institution run by the Arya Vysya Community or not is also a question which requires further enquiry and cannot be gone into by this Court. 8. Section 154 of the Endowments Act, 1987 empowers the Government to exempt any Religious or Charitable Endowment or Institution from any of the provisions of the 1987 Act. This provision does not empower or authorize the Commissioner, Endowments to grant such an exemption to any 5 Institution or Endowment. The G.O.Ms.No.1098 Revenue (Endowments.1) Department, dated 11.09.2008 had been issued by the Government, under Section 154 of the 1987 Act exempting Choultries and Annadana Samajam of Andhra Pradesh, maintained by Arya Vysya Community from the operation of Sections 15 & 29 of the 1987 Act. The impugned proceedings of the Commissioner, Endowments in Rc.A4/53298/2010 dated 09.03.2013 refers to this G.O and goes on to state as follows: “Sri Nagavarapu Buthi Abbayi Choultry, Rajahmundry, East Godvari District which is a denominational institution is hereby exempted from the operation of provisions of Sections 15 & 29 of the APC & HRI and Endowments Act 30/87 with the following conditions: 1) ……………. 9. A perusal of the above extract would show that the Commissioner, Endowments while referring to G.O.ms.No.1098, dated 11.09.2018, has effectively granted a fresh order of exemption attached with conditions to the 2nd respondent. Such an order of exemption, which can only be granted by the Government under Section 154 of the 1987 Act, could not have been issued by the Commissioner, Endowments and as such, the said order in Rc.A4/53298/2010 dated 09.03.2013 has to be set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and authority. 12. Such an order of exemption, which can only be granted by the Government under Section 154 of the 1987 Act, could not have been issued by the Commissioner, Endowments and as such, the said order in Rc.A4/53298/2010 dated 09.03.2013 has to be set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and authority. 12. In the said impugned proceedings, Commissioner, Endowments, while referring to G.O.Ms.No.1098 dated 11.9.2018 has effectively granted a fresh order of exemption attached with conditions to the 2nd respondent. Such order of exemption, which can only be granted by the Government Under Section 154 of the Act, could not have been issued by the Commissioner, Endowments. Therefore, in the present case also the Commissioner has no such power to issue impugned order it can only be granted by the Government. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside, which suffer lack jurisdiction under Section 154 of the 1987 Act. 13. Per contra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents while reiterating the averments made in the counters, contended that even there arose several allegations against the petitioner sangham and one Sri A. Nageswara Rao and another was filed a complaint before the Hon'ble Lokayuktha, A.P., questioning the action of the department in handing over the management of said 2 temples to the petitioner and accordingly the said authority directed the 2nd respondent to submit a detailed report in the subject matter and accordingly reports were submitted from time to time. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent appointed the above said single trustee to the Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Sametha Sri Venkateswara swamy temple, Gorantla, Guntur City, vide proceedings in Rc.No.A4/6823/2014, dated 04-10-2016. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent appointed the above said single trustee to the Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Sametha Sri Venkateswara swamy temple, Gorantla, Guntur City, vide proceedings in Rc.No.A4/6823/2014, dated 04-10-2016. He submits that after detailed enquiry, the 2nd respondent i.e., the Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P., passed orders in Rc.No.D3/16564/2014, dated 28-10-2016 rejecting the request of the petitioner for extension of their term of management for another period of 3 years for managing the affairs of Sri Seetharama Swamy temple, Gorantla, Village and Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Sametha Sri Venkateswara swamy temple, Gorantla, Guntur City, and further issued directions to this respondent to see that the single trustee already appointed to the above 2 temples shall take charge of accounts, records, movable and immovable properties immediately from the petitioner sangham and report compliance against the said orders of 2nd respondent in Rc.No.D3/16564/2014, dated 28-10-2016, then petition filed by the petitioner and obtained status quo orders, dated 15-11-2016 and continued their management without following the provisions of the Endowments Act, 30/87. 14. Learned Senior counsel for the respondents mainly contended that there is another provision under Section 145 of the 1987 Act. As per section 145 of the Act 1987 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.[Provided that the conditions to be satisfied for any such adoption or amalgamation shall be as may be prescribed.] [Added by Act No. 33 of 2007, dated 11.12.2007. (2) On such amalgamation or adoption the institutions shall be deemed to compromise a single institution and administered as if they were a single institution published under Section 6. (2) On such amalgamation or adoption the institutions shall be deemed to compromise 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 maybe 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 there upon the institution shall manage its affairs independently out of its funds. (4) An appeal shall lie to the Government against the orders passed by the Commissioner under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3). 15. As per Section 145 (3) there was no precedent at any time granting exemption in favour of the petitioner institution under Act 30/1987 or any other and that no power was exercised under Section 154 as per projected. On the other hand the proceedings were issued initially tagging this institution to another institution exercise power under Section 145(b). Moreover, the Government directed the commissioner to handover and commissioner handed over to them and the management of the subject institution be handed over to Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi. There is no occasion for exercising power. Learned counsel further submits that as per Section 145 (3) of the Act, the commissioner may in the interest of proper management of administration, revoke the orders issued under sub-section (1), and there upon the institution shall manage its affairs independently out of its funds. Basing on the representation of the petitioner, the management restored to original institution. Therefore, exemption does not arise at all under Section 154 of the Act. As stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that commissioner has no power is not at all acceptable because granting exemption by virtue of Section 8 of the Act, the Commissioner is having power therefore the commissioner exercised power rightly not by the government. 8. Powers and functions of Commissioner and Additional Commissioner. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the administration of all charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and endowments shall be under the general superintendence and control of the Commissioner and such superintendence and control shall include the power to pass any order which may be deemed necessary to ensure that such institutions and endowments are properly administered and their income is duly appropriated for the purposes for which they were found or exist. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the Commissioner shall exercise the powers conferred on him and perform the functions entrusted to him by or under this Act in respect of such institutions or endowments in the State as are included in the lists published under clause (a), clause (d) and clause (e) of Section 6. (3) The powers and functions of the Additional Commissioner shall be such as may be determined by the Government from time to time. (4) The Commissioner may delegate to a Deputy Commissioner any of the powers conferred on or functions entrusted to the Commissioner by or under this Act including the powers and functions of an Assistant Commissioner which may be exercised or performed by the Commissioner under sub-section (5) but not including the power and functions of the Commissioner under sub-section (1), Sections 6, 15, 49, 51, 66, 90, 92 and 132 in respect of any institution or endowments or any class or group of institutions or endowments in the State subject to such restriction and control as the Government may by general or special order lay down and subject also to such limitations and conditions, if any, as may be specified in the order of delegation. (5) The Commissioner may delegate to an Assistant Commissioner any of the powers conferred on or functions entrusted to the Commissioner by or under this Act except the powers and functions of the Commissioner under sub-section (1), Sections 6, 15, 49, 51, 66, 90, 92 and 132 in respect of any institution or endowment in the sub-division in charge of the Assistant Commissioner subject to such restrictions and control as the Government may, by general or special order, lay down and subject also to such limitations and conditions if any, as may be specified in the order of delegation. (6) Notwithstanding anything in Sections 10 and 11, the Commissioner may, by order in writing, declare that the exercise and performance of all or any of the powers or functions by the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, shall be subject to such exceptions, limitations and conditions as may be specified in the order and he may himself exercise any power or perform the functions so excepted. 16. 16. While relying on the above, learned Senior counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have followed statutory power in appointing single trustee therefore there are no grounds to entertain these writ petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. 17. To support his contentions, learned Senior counsel for the respondents has relied upon a decision of this Court in a case of P. Madhu Babu and others vs. Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments Department, Hyderabad and others, [WP Nos.321, 768 and 8379 of 2012 dated 16.7.2012], wherein it was held that : “the appointment of trustees is governed by the appointment of Trustees Rules 1987 under G.O.Ms.No258, Revenue (Endowments-I), dated 31-03-1988 and the le 4(2) providing for publication of notice in Form-I in any daily newspaper in the language of the locality arises for implementation only, if the institution or endowment is situated in big cities and is capable of meeting the cost of publication. Neither Kamepalli is a big city nor Poleramma temple appearing to be capable of meeting the cost of publication, apart from the fact that in any view, it is an option and not a mandate for the competent authority to make such publication. The absence of newspaper publication, therefore cannot be considered to vitiate the impugned appointment and verification of the qualifications and verification of the antecedents are not shown to be, in any manner, in violation of Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules and the orders appointing the trustees by the competent authority under Rule 7 of the Rules are also not shown to be in violation of any qualifications and disqualifications for trusteeship laid down under the provisions of A.P. Act 30 of 1987 or the merits of the applicants referred to in Rule 8 of the Rules. Vague and unsubstantiated allegations cannot constitute a substitute for a vacuum of facts.” 18. Perused the material on record. 19. A perusal of the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.D3/16564/2014 dated 28.10.2016 of the 2nd respondent, wherein It was stated that : While so, one Sri A. Nageswara Rao and another have filed a complaint before the Hon'ble Lokayukta questioning the action of Department in handing over the management of said two temples to the private persons. 19. A perusal of the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.D3/16564/2014 dated 28.10.2016 of the 2nd respondent, wherein It was stated that : While so, one Sri A. Nageswara Rao and another have filed a complaint before the Hon'ble Lokayukta questioning the action of Department in handing over the management of said two temples to the private persons. In the said complaint the petitioners have contended that the present management is not paying annual contributions nor obtaining budget sanctions etc besides improper maintenance of records and expressed certain apprehensions over the possible embezzlement of valuable properties attached to these temples. The Hon'ble Lokayukta in the reference 4th cited, while forwarding the said complaint have directed this office for submission of report by 22.09.2014. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Guntur to whom the above complaint has been referred to, vide this office in Rc.No.M2/16564/2014,dt.23.07.2014, has submitted his report in his Rc.No.A5/8993/2014, Dt.15.09.2014 which does not reveal the facts on the complaint. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Guntur has been requested to enquire into the matter and submit a detailed report vide this office Rc.No.M2/16564/2014, Dt.17.11.2014. Accordingly, he has submitted his report vide Lr. Rc.No.A4/6823/2014, Dt.23.12.2014 stating that the said sangham is not acting according to the provisions of the Act 30 of 1987 despite the condition stipulated by the Government Sensing trouble on the part of the said sangham for their improper maintenance and other irregular procedures without concerning the provisions of the Act, the Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments, Tirupathi has been requested vide this office in Rc.No.D3/16564-1, Dt.28.07.2015, to inspect both the institutions and make an extensive enquiry over the management by verifying all the records and submit factual report. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Guntur has also been directed vide this office in Rc.No.D3/16564-2, Dt.28.07.2015 t? take immediate action to give final notice to the said sangham to pay all statutory payments due to the Department right from inception as per rules and take necessary action for protection of Ac.1.00cts of land belonging to Sri Sitarama Swamy Temple, Gorantla (V) and do not allow any constructions till further orders” 20. take immediate action to give final notice to the said sangham to pay all statutory payments due to the Department right from inception as per rules and take necessary action for protection of Ac.1.00cts of land belonging to Sri Sitarama Swamy Temple, Gorantla (V) and do not allow any constructions till further orders” 20. Further, on a perusal of the Memo No.20905/Endts.IV(1)/2011, dated 24.09.2011, issued by the Government of A.P., would show that, “the Government have carefully examined the matter and decided to direct the Commissioner, Endowments Department to revoke the orders of Commissioner, Endowments in Memo No.D2/22397/09, dated 7.5.2010 and D.Dis No.H1/30068/2010, dated 28.8.2010 and the management of the subject institutions be handed over to Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Sametha Sri Venkateswar Swamy Vishwarasanti Seva Sanga, Annapoorna Nagar Gorantla village, Guntur Rural Mandal and District for a period of three years with a condition to follow the provisions of the Endowments Act 30/1987. 21. On hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels, this court observed that, the petitioner is challenging the actions of the respondents with regard management of a temple. It is the contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially granted exemption from certain provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act) for a period of three years. However, the exemption was revoked, and the management of the temple was transferred to another entity. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents acted illegally and arbitrarily in revoking the exemption and transferring the management. He also argued that they were not given proper notice or an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 22. Moreover, it is the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents had the authority to revoke the exemption and transfer the management. They also argue that the petitioner was not entitled to the exemption in the first place. 23. This Court further noticed that, with regard to Lokayukta proceedings, the respondent authorities have not given any opportunity of hearing and that the version of the petitioner is without issuing notice or without giving any opportunity, the respondents have decided and went on and passed the impugned proceedings. 24. 23. This Court further noticed that, with regard to Lokayukta proceedings, the respondent authorities have not given any opportunity of hearing and that the version of the petitioner is without issuing notice or without giving any opportunity, the respondents have decided and went on and passed the impugned proceedings. 24. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that, the Commissioner has no power to issue such orders only as per directions of the Government, they have to follow the provisions of the Endowments Act 30/1987. As such, the impugned orders in the present writ petitions are liable to be set aside n the ground of lack of jurisdiction and authority. Therefore, this Court, in the interest of justice, is inclined to allow these writ petitions. 25. Accordingly, the W.P.No.39248 of 2016 is allowed. The impugned Proceedings in Rc.No.D3/16564/2014, dated 28.10.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequential proceedings in Rc.No.A4/6823/2014, dated 4.10.2016 issued by the 4th respondent are hereby set aside. Further, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the representations dated 28.4.2014 and 23.6.2014 submitted by the petitioner forthwith. Further, the petitioner is also directed to submit a fresh representation to the 1st respondent within one (01) weeks, and on such receipt of such representation, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, forthwith. 26. Consequently, WP No.8871 of 2024 is also allowed. The impugned proceedings in Rc.No.D2/COE-14021(42)/1/2024 dated 10.04.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent in the name of 2nd respondent is hereby set aside. 27. There shall be no order as to costs. 28. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.