JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief : “….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in RC No.B4/9499/2014 dated 25.08.2015 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments at Kakinada as illegal and contravention of the provisions of the Endowments Act and also in violation of principle of natural justice. Consequently set aside the proceedings in RC No.B4/9499/2014 dated 25.08.2015 issued by 3rd respondent. This Court vide order dated 02.09.2015 while issuing notice before admission, has granted interim direction as under : “…Any appointment of Executive Officer in pursuant to the order impugned shall abide the result of the writ petition.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is working as an Archaka in Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple, Vemagiri, by virtue of inheritance was appointed as single trustee to manage the affairs of the temple as per the provisions of the Endowment Act. The Commissioner has issued the proceedings under 4th proviso to Section 15(2) of the Endowment Act, as the income of the temple is below Rs.2 lakhs under the Act appointing the petitioner as single trustee to manage the affairs of the aforesaid temple in terms of the provisions of the act and the rules made under and was asked to take the charge of the accounts, records, valuables from Sri P. Adinarayana and submitted a report alongwith his specimen signatures to accord and restrict operation of Bank Accounts. The petitioner was held responsible for the proper administration of the temple and liable for any lapses. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted budget estimates from the year 2009 onwards and the same was approved by the competent authority without any allegations of mismanagement or another manner. In pursuance of managing the affairs of the institution, the petitioner has issued the notice to the existing tenants on 23.04.2015 to vacate the land of Acs.3.84 cents in Sy.No.275 which is owned by the temple as the lease period expired, in view of the circular instruction issued by the Joint Commissioner, dated 11.03.2015, and conduct a public action for the benefit of the institution. 3. 3. While the matter stood thus, some of the tenants challenged this notice approaching the Hon’ble Court by way of filing WP No.14145/2014, WP No.14171/2015, WP No.18840/2015 and WP No.1415/2015 on various grounds for demanding them to vacate and handover the vacant land to enable the institution to conduct public the action to the benefit of institution. Petitioner believes that these tenants complained against alleging that he failed to discharge his duties which led to the issuance of impugned Proceedings No.B4/9499/2014, dated 25.08.2015 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada-3rd respondent, without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any notice. It is submitted that the petitioner was neither provided the copy of such allegations nor given an opportunity to submit an explanation, was asked to handover the charge for better management to the P.T.V. Satyanarayana Murthy, Executive Officer, Sri Chanda Choultry, Rajamahendravaram-5th respondent without stating the reasons for such handing over of the charge. Hence the present writ petition came to be filed. 4. The counter-affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent. While denying all the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, the roles of Archaka and Executive Officer are distinct. Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple, Vemagiri (V), Kadiam (M) is published under Section 6(b)(ii) of the Act 30/1987 and under the administrative control of Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada and the petitioner is an Archaka of the temple and earlier he was authorized as Single Trustee by the 3rd respondent herein. Since, the Religious activities and administrative affairs are different and the temple having an extent of Acs.15.44 cents at Vemagiri (V) and in the interest of public service and for better administration, the 3rd respondent herein appointed the 5th respondent herein as Executive Officer to Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple, Vemagiri (V) deleting the charge from the petitioner herein. It is further stated that the duties and responsibilities for the post of Executive Officer as prescribed under Section 29 of the Act is different than the duties and functioning of Archakatwam. To manage the affairs of the subject temple, the 3rd respondent herein was issued proceedings keeping the subject institution under the charge of 5th respondent for day-to-day administration of the temple. For this there is no hurdle to the petitioner to discharge his duties as Archaka in the subject temple and accordingly he is discharging his duties. To manage the affairs of the subject temple, the 3rd respondent herein was issued proceedings keeping the subject institution under the charge of 5th respondent for day-to-day administration of the temple. For this there is no hurdle to the petitioner to discharge his duties as Archaka in the subject temple and accordingly he is discharging his duties. It is further stated that the subject temple is under the administrative management by the 5th respondent since 2015 onwards and later he was transferred to another institution and now it is under the administrative control of Sri R. Srinivas, Executive Officer, Grade-I. Since, the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent herein which was questioned by the petitioner herein is valid as per provisions of the Endowments Act and Rules made thereunder, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents. 6. On hearing, the Counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the petition, submitted that, the appointment of 5th respondent is in violation of Section 57 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, (for short “the Act”) read with Section 36 deals with the budget of charitable and religious institutions; qualifications for being appointed as an Archaka, having failed to afford opportunity under such provision of law and even in the instant case the income of the temple is below Rs.2 lakhs, the question of appointing an Executive Officer does not arise. 7. This Court raised a query that, “if there was any stipulated time for the appointment of a single trustee and whether 3rd respondent is competent to issue such proceedings? 8. In response, the 3rd respondent submitted that as Executive Officer wasn’t available, the 3rd respondent has appointed another Executive Officer i.e., 5th respondent and the 3rd respondent is competent to issue such proceedings under Section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. He further submits that, there is no hurdle to the petitioner to discharge his duties as Archaka in the subject temple and accordingly he is discharging his duties. He further submits that, there is no hurdle to the petitioner to discharge his duties as Archaka in the subject temple and accordingly he is discharging his duties. He further submits that, the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent herein, which was questioned by the petitioner herein, is valid as per provisions of Endowments Act and Rules made thereunder, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. In view of the submissions of learned Counsel for the respondents, finding no merit in the instant writ petition and devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.