ORDER : Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same they are being taken up for disposal by way of this common order. 2. WP No.38685 of 2012 is filed seeking declaring the action of the 2 nd respondent in issuing the impugned Notice Rc No.A4/29305/2012, dated 4.8.2012 without considering the petitioner’s request as illegal and arbitrary. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner and his forefathers are Maharajahs of Pithapuram Estate. They constructed and renewed temples and donated lands. As influential persons are trying to induct their persons into the temples as trustees, the petitioner made a Memorandum for trusteeship to the 2 nd respondent. But, as no action was taken by the 2 nd respondent, the petitioner has filed WP No.2123 of 2009 before this Court seeking to declare him as Founder Family Member/ Chairman of the Institutions established by his forefathers. During pendency of the said writ petition, the respondents removed one Executive Officer, who is conducting the Sri Samsthanam Choultry affairs promptly and brought the income more than Rs.15 lakhs and posted to Sri Kukkuteswara Swamy temple as Executive Officer and a person, who is related to the local MLA was given as additional charge of more than 8 Institutions and again to the same person the above Choultry was also given. Thus a person managing and who is In-charge of two or three institutions cannot concentrate on any of the institutions, who is also very much junior in service to the above said Chalapathi Rao, was again given the responsibilities of said Choultry, besides 8 other institutions as additional charge, clearly establishes the evil designs of the persons, who are having vested interests and siphoning off the funds of the Institution. Even though the petitioner made several representations to declare him as Founder Trustee/ Chairman to the Institutions (12) but the respondents have not taken any action. While so, as the Deputy Commissioner-3 rd respondent directed the petitioner to file separate applications for all the temples before the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Kakinada and the same are pending consideration. Even though the petitioner made several representations to declare him as Founder Trustee/ Chairman to the Institutions (12) but the respondents have not taken any action. While so, as the Deputy Commissioner-3 rd respondent directed the petitioner to file separate applications for all the temples before the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Kakinada and the same are pending consideration. While so, the 2 nd respondent without giving any notice and without hearing the petitioner and also by ignoring his recognition as Founder Family Member to Sri Samsthanam Annadana Choultry at Pithapuram, E.G District, has issued impugned proceedings dated 4.8.2012 calling applications from interested persons for Trusteeship for the Trust Board to be constituted to the above Sri Samsthanam Choultry. Questioning the same the present writ petition came to be filed. 4. During pendency of the writ petition in WP No.38685 of 2012, the petitioner herein filed another WP No.1864 of 2022 questioning the proceedings of the Commissioner of Endowments, A.P., Vijayawada in K.Dis.NoB3/12024(31)/30/2021 dated 21.01.2022 appointing the respondents No.5 to 10 in WP No.1864 of 2022 as Trustees under sub Section 2 of Section 15 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 (for short “the Act”) to Sri Samsthanam Choultry, Pithapuram Town and Mandal, E.G. District by ignoring the right of the petitioner who is the member of the Founder’s family to the 2 nd respondent Choultry and on the strength of an incompetent authority issuing a notice in Form-I read with Rule 4(1) of g.O.M.No.258 dated 31.03.1988 contrary to the provisions of the Endowments Act. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2 nd respondent in WP No.38685 of 2012. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, the 2 nd respondent after following due procedure mentioned in the Act and the Rules thereunder has constituted a Trust Board to the Choultry vide proceedings in K.Dis No.B3/12024(31)/30/2022 dated 21.01.2022 appointing six members as trustees to the choultry and they in- turn made oath of the office and Secrecy and started discharging duties as trustees to the Choultry. 6. In the meanwhile the petitioner has filed WP No.1864/2022 before this Court. It is stated that the petitioner herein is not recognized as a Member of Founder Family to the Choultry as known to law. 6. In the meanwhile the petitioner has filed WP No.1864/2022 before this Court. It is stated that the petitioner herein is not recognized as a Member of Founder Family to the Choultry as known to law. The petitioner filed OA No.233/2008 on the file of Endowments Tribunal against the Choultry in question and (30) other institutions in E.G District to declare him as Member of Founder Family to those Institutions under Sec.87(1)(h) of the Act. While pending the same and without mention about pendency of said O.A, the petitioner herein made representation under administrative side to the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department,. Kakinada and obtained order in Rc.No.A4/4586/2006, dated 29.03.2008 recognizing him as a Member of Founder Family to the Choultry alone, by suppressing real facts. Subsequently, O.A.No.233/2008 was dismissed after hearing on 19.06.2009. A quasi judicial order of Deputy Commissioner of Endowments made In O.A.No.233/2008 dated 19.06.2009 under Sec.87(1)(h) of the Act prevails then the order dated 29.03.2008 in Rc. No.A4/4586/2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner on administrative side. As there is no legal force on the above order dated 29.03.2008 the petitioner filed O.A.No.183/2010 before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada to recognize him as Member of Founder Family to the Choultry and the same is transferred to A.P. Endowments Tribunal after its constitution as per Sec. 162 of the Act 30/1987 and re-numbered as O.A.No.2805/2010. The same was dismissed for default on 17.12.2012 and the said Orders passed by the Tribunal under Sec.87(1)(h) of the Act and the same became final as the petitioner has not filed any appeal against dismissal order of the Tribunal or any petition to restore the said O.A by set aside default dismissal order. The fact remains the O.A filed by the petitioner is dismissed by the Tribunal and the same binds on him. Therefore, the petitioner herein is not recognized as Member of Founder Family to the choultry. The fact remains the O.A filed by the petitioner is dismissed by the Tribunal and the same binds on him. Therefore, the petitioner herein is not recognized as Member of Founder Family to the choultry. It is further stated that the remedy left to the petitioner is to approach A.P. Endowments Tribunal by takes steps to restore dismissal order of O.A filed by him to recognize him as Member of Founder Family to the choultry, but cannot invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the action of the Commissioner of Endowments in issuance of notification 04.08.2012 calling applications from interested persons for trusteeship to constitute Trust Board to the choultry without a valid order from competent authority recognize him as Member of Founder Family to the choultry. It is well settled law that writ petition is not maintainable, when an alternative and effective remedy is available under the Statue, which is already invoked by the petitioner by file O.A before Tribunal dismissed for default for the reasons best known to him and not taking any steps to restore the said O.A to the file by set aside dismissal order. Hence, this writ petition is not maintainable either on facts or under law and liable to be dismissed. 7. This Court vide order dated 31.01.2022 in WP No.1864/2022 after hearing the both the learned counsels, has suspended the proceedings dated 21.01.2022 issued by the 2 nd respondent and respondents No.5 to 10 cannot discharge the functions of the members of the Board of Trust of the 2 nd respondent choultry pending further orders in this writ petition. 8. Heard Sri M. Vidya Sagar and Sri P. Krishna, learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri K. B. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents made in the petitions, submits that, the subject institution was established with a noble cause of providing free education to the children who are not in a position to pay the fees to pursue their studies. One of the objectives was to accommodate the way farers and also providing free food to the people who cannot afford for a daily meal. One of the objectives was to accommodate the way farers and also providing free food to the people who cannot afford for a daily meal. Thus the predominant factor of establishing the choultry was with an objective which are useful to the public and also with an aim of providing free education and also food. The Samsthanam Choultry was endowed an extent of Acs.500- 74 cents in the year 1860 by the father of the petitioner herein. Thus irrespective of the caste, creed and religion the noble purpose for which the choultry was established was being performed by the father of the petitioner during his life time. Consequent to the demise of the petitioner's father the petitioner did continue the philanthropic activities in conformity with the aims and objectives of his father who established the choultry with a great cause. 10. He further submits that the petitioner’s family who are the erstwhile rajas of Pithapuram also constructed as many as 31 temples and also endowing the temples with vast properties with an aim of the temples surviving on its own in the event of there not being any public contributions. While things stood thus consequent to the abolition of Hereditary Trustees and bringing into force Act, 30 of 1987 the petitioner herein applied to the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada to recognize him as a member of the founder's family to the 2nd respondent choultry. The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments who was the competent authority to recognize as a member of the founder's family at that point of time after conducting an enquiry, vide his proceedings in Rc.No.A4/4586/2006, dated 29-03-2008 recognized the petitioner herein as a member of the founder's family to the Samsthanam Choultry, Pithapuram confirming the right of succession through his father Sri Makaraajah Rao Venkata Kumara Mahipathi Surya Rao Bahadur. Thus right since the recognition of the petitioner as a member of the founder's family the petitioner herein was continuing the aims and objectives of his father by undertaking the philanthropic activities. In the course of time the institution was brought under the jurisdiction of the 1 st respondent i.e., the Commissioner of Endowments in view of the increase in its income which fell between Rs.2 lakhs to 25 lakhs. In the course of time the institution was brought under the jurisdiction of the 1 st respondent i.e., the Commissioner of Endowments in view of the increase in its income which fell between Rs.2 lakhs to 25 lakhs. He further submits that, consequent to the petitioner’s application surprisingly the 1 st respondent Constituted a Board of Trustee vide the impugned proceedings dated 21.01.2022 keeping aside the petitioner who is a member of the founder’s family and as such he is entitled to be appointed as a Chairman Board of trustees under the provisions of Section 20(1)(b) wherein it specifies that “Where the founder or a member of the family of the founder is appointed as a trustee, he shall be chairman of board of trustees”. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the impugned proceedings. 11. Whereas, learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents opposed for allowing the writ petitions and submits that the provisions of the Act had been amended with effect from 03.01.2008 taking away the jurisdiction and authority of the Deputy Commissioner to recognize the members of the founder family. He further submits that this power had been entrusted to the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87 of the Act and as such the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner are non est. The petitioner being fully aware of this fact, had also approached the Endowments Tribunal by way of O.A.No.2805 of 2010, which was dismissed for default on 17.12.2012 and thereafter, the petitioner did not take any steps to get the order dismissal set aside, but had filed an appeal against the said order and consequently, the said order had become final. He further submits that, on account of this order of dismissal, the petitioner does not have any standing as a member of the founder family and as such cannot claim any rights as a member of the founder family. Therefore, opposed for allowing the writ petitions and prayed to dismiss the same. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents submits that the respondents No.5 to 7 who are appointed as trustees of the Board have already resigned to their posts and they are kept vacant. 13. Perused the material on record. 14. Therefore, opposed for allowing the writ petitions and prayed to dismiss the same. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents submits that the respondents No.5 to 7 who are appointed as trustees of the Board have already resigned to their posts and they are kept vacant. 13. Perused the material on record. 14. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner’s family who are erstwhile rajas of Pithapuram also constructed as many as 31 temples and also endowing the temples with vast properties with an aim of the temples surviving on its own in the event of there not being any public contributions. It is observed that the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments who was the competent authority to recognize as a member of the founder’s family at that point of time after conducting an enquiry vide its proceedings dated 29.03.2008 recognized the petitioner herein as amber of the founder’s family to the Samsthanam Choultry, Pitharpuram confirming the right of succession through his father Sri Maharajah Rao Venkata Kumara Mahipathi Surya Rao Bahadur. Further, since the recognition of the petitioner as a member of the founder’s family the petitioner herein was continuing the aims and objectives of his father by undertaking the philanthropic activities. 15. It is the contention of the petitioner that, a notification under Form-I read with Rule 4(1) was issued by the 3 rd respondent vide Notice in Computer No.A6/394169/2021, dated 06.12.2021 calling for applications to constitute a Trust Board to the 2 nd respondent Choultrty. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner has also applied in Form-II under 5(1) to the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments on 17.12.2021 by enclosing his declaration as a member of the founder’s family given by the 3 rd respondent to appoint him as a trustee. But without considering the application of the petitioner, the respondent has issued the impugned proceedings, is highly illegal and arbitrary. 16. As per Section 15 of the Act 30 of 1987 the Commissioner of Endowments is competent authority to constitute a Board of Trustee to the temple. If the temple is having a recognized member of founder family, he should apply for trusteeship after issuance of notification by the authorities and that he shall be appointed as Chairman to the Trust Board to be constituted. 17. If the temple is having a recognized member of founder family, he should apply for trusteeship after issuance of notification by the authorities and that he shall be appointed as Chairman to the Trust Board to be constituted. 17. As seen from the procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.258 Revenue (Endowments.I) Department, dated 31.03.1998, wherein it prescribes an elaborate procedure under Rule 6 sub-rule 1 and 2 wherein the competent authority scrutinize the applications along with report of the verifying the officers appointing the trustees. 18. In the present case, though the petitioner had applied in time in due compliance of the procedure contemplated under the Act, the claim of the petitioner to be appointed as a trustee and his consequent nomination as a Chairman to the subject institution is a right that is accrued to him under law. 19. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petitions while declaring the action of the respondents as illegal and arbitrary. 20. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned proceedings in both the writ petitions are hereby set aside. Further the petitioner is directed to submit fresh application to the respondent authorities and on receipt of such application, the 1 st respondent is directed to examine the issue in pursuant to Section 15 of the Act 30/1987 as well as under G.O.Ms.No.258, dated 31.03.1998, and pass appropriate reasoned orders in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order costs. 21. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.