Order : K. MANMADHA RAO, J. The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “….. to issue a Writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings Rc.No.A1/10036/2014, dated 15-6-2015 passed by the 3 rd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, lack of jurisdiction, non application of mind, usurping the powers of Tribunal and vioaltive of the provisions of Act 30 of 1987 and the Rules made there under and consequently set aside the proceedings of 3 rd respondent dated 15-6-2015 and also the memo issued by the 4 th respondent dated 30-6- 2015….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the 1 st petitioner discharging the duties or Archaka in Sri Venkateswara Swamy temple, Kothapeta and Lord Venugopala Swamy Temple, Eatakota, East Godavari District (for short “subject temples”) on rotation basis. The petitioners 3 and 4 are also discharging duties in the temples on rotation basis along with the respondents 5 to 7. Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Kothapeta is classified as 6C temple. While things stood thus, the respondents 5 to 7 filed suit in O.S.No.88 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kothapeta against the 1 st petitioner and others for declaration that they are the only surviving hereditary archakas of subject temples. The 1 st petitioner filed written statement and contested the suit. The Endowments Department represented by the Manager of the 4 th respondent filed written statement. The suit O.S.No.88 of 1992 was dismissed for default on 18.10.2000. Later the respondents 5 to 7 filed I.A.No.2230 of 2000 under Order 9 Rule 9 under Section 151 C.P.C. By filing a memo the application was not pressed and hence by order dated 26.3.2008, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, dismissed I.A.No.2230 of 2000 as not pressed. Thus, the suit filed by the respondents 5 to 7 was dismissed. As on today, the 1 st petitioner rendering archakatvam service in Sri Lord Venugopala Swamy Temple, Eatakota. The 5 th respondent is rendering archakatvam service in Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Kothapeta and has to handover the Archakatvam service to the petitioners 3 and 4 in August, 2015 as per rotation. On an earlier occasion, the 1 st petitioner filed W.P.No.19062 of 2007 impugning Memo No.1/2017, dated 03.09.2007 issued by the 2 nd respondent as illegal. The 5 th respondent is rendering archakatvam service in Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Kothapeta and has to handover the Archakatvam service to the petitioners 3 and 4 in August, 2015 as per rotation. On an earlier occasion, the 1 st petitioner filed W.P.No.19062 of 2007 impugning Memo No.1/2017, dated 03.09.2007 issued by the 2 nd respondent as illegal. This Court vide order dated 19.12.2007 allowed the writ petition directing the 3 rd respondent therein to dispose of the matter within three months and directed the parties to maintain status-quo. Accordingly, the 3 rd respondent conducted enquiry on 20.05.2008 and directed the parties to approach the competent Court for settlement of issue in the matter of legal heirs. Thereafter, the then 3 rd respondent issued notice vide Rc.No.A1/10036/ 2014, dated 06.05.2015 and directed the petitioners 1 and 2 along with respondents 5 to 7 to attend enquiry on 14.05.2015 at 11:00 A.M. The petitioners have filed their explanations. The 3 rd respondent without considering any of the documents including the judgment dated 10.04.1997 passed in O.S.No.280 of 1989 on the file of District Munsif at Kothapeta, passed the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.A1/10036/2014, dated 15.06.2015, stating that the respondents 5 to 7 alone are entitled to render archakatvam as per Act 30/87 and also Archakatvam Service Rules and further directed the 4 th respondent to implement the orders and report compliance. Pursuant to the same, the 4 th respondent issued letter dated 30.06.2015 declaring that the petitioners 1 and 2 are not entitled to render archakatvam service in the Lord Venkateswara Swamy temple, Kothapeta. Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 15.06.2015 of the 3 rd respondent, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. This Court, vide order, dated 10.07.2015 has granted interim suspension of the proceedings vide Rc.No.A1/10036/2014, dated 15.06.2015 of the 3 rd respondent in WPMP.No.27402 of 2015. 4. The 3 rd respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that Sri Venkateswara Swamy temple, Kothapeta Village and Mandal, East Godavari district is notified under Section 6(c) institution as per the Andhra Pradesh Hindu Religious and Charitable Act of 1987 and the same is under the Administrative Control of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry, East Godavari. It is further stated that initially one Sri Khandavilli Seetaramacharyulu was the hereditary archaka of Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Kothapeta village and Mandal and during his lifetime, he was survive with his three sons namely K.Narayana Charyulu, K.Lakshmana Charyulu, K.Ranga Charyulu. After the expiry of K.Seetaramacharyulu, his three sons have rendered hereditary archakatvam in the temple. Thereafter, K.Narayana charyulu was survived with Suryanarayana Charyulu and other two brothers. Sri Suryanarayana Charyulu survived with three sons namely Sri Rangacharyulu, Sri Srinivasa Charyulu and Sri Phaniraja Venugopala Charyulu. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department after conducting a detailed enquiry has passed orders in the year 1961 declaring the hereditary rights and archakatvam service on rotation basis of the three sons of K.Seetaramacharyulu in the subject temples. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department vide orders dated 20.07.2000 and 10.07.2001 declared the hereditary rights of his three sons of the original hereditary archaka Sri Khandavilli Seetharamacharyulu. While things stood thus, the grandson of K.Suryanarayana Charyulu filed an application before the 3 rd respondent to declare the hereditary rights of archakatvam to himself and his brothers as per Section 35(3) and as per Section 144 of Act 30/87. The Manager has passed orders in Memo No.1/2007, dated 03.09.2007 declaring that the respondents 5 to 7 are only entitled to render Archakatvam. Challenging the same, the 1 st petitioner filed W.P.No.19062 of 2007 and this Court disposed of the writ petition on 19.12.2007 directing the 3 rd respondent to conduct detailed enquiry after giving opportunity and to pass orders. As such, the Deputy Commissioner has conducted the detailed enquiry on 06.05.2015 and passed orders in Rc.No.A1/10036/2014, dated 15.06.2015 declaring the respondents 5 to 7 are only eligible to be hereditary archakas to the 4 th respondent temple as per the directions of this Court and as per Sections 35(3) and 144 only and not as per Section 87 of the Act 30/87. 5. The 4 th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the 1 st petitioner earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.288 of 1989 to declare that he is the legal heir of Sri Rangacharyulu adopted by his wife, in respect of a piece of land. The said suit was dismissed declaring that the 1 st petitioner is not eligible to declare as adopted son of Khandavalli Rangacharyulu. The said suit was dismissed declaring that the 1 st petitioner is not eligible to declare as adopted son of Khandavalli Rangacharyulu. The 3 rd respondent after taking into consideration has passed a cogent order. Hence there is no illegality in the order dated 15.06.2015. It is further stated that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the hereditary archakatvam of the respondents 5 to 7, they have to approach the Endowments Tribunal constituted under Section 162 of the Act 33/2007. 6. The respondents 5 to 7 filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the first son Khandavalli Narayanara Charyulu had only one son Khandavalli Suryanarayan Charyulu and the said Suryanarayan Charyulu has three sons i.e., the respondents 5 to 7, who are all succeeded to archakatvam service on behalf of 1 st rotationdar. The 2 nd rotationdar khandavalli Laxmanacharyulu died issue less. But his sister’s son Vadapalli Rangacharyulu worked as archaka on deputation and he died on 25.10.2005 having no children and he has a wife named Vadapalli Ananthagopalaratnam. It is further stated that the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department in Rc.No.A4/7563/2006, dated 17.09.2006 that the 2 nd and 3 rd rotationdars have no right in the archakatvam service, since they are only deputy archakas and department has never passed any orders recognizing them neither deputy archakas nor the alleged wills and the alleged adoption. 7. Heard Mr.T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr.V.S.K.Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7. 8. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the 3 rd respondent also did not consider the proceedings of the then of the 3 rd respondent dated 23.06.2008 where under the then 3 rd respondent, after conducting enquiry directed the parties to approach the competent court for settlement of the issues in the matter of legal heirs. The said enquiry was conducted pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.19062 of 2007. Hence, the enquiry conducted by the 3 rd respondent on 14.05.2015 is hit by principals of resjudicata and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The said enquiry was conducted pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.19062 of 2007. Hence, the enquiry conducted by the 3 rd respondent on 14.05.2015 is hit by principals of resjudicata and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the 3 rd respondent ignored to consider the document filed along with the explanation where under the suit filed by the respondents 5 to 7 was dismissed. He further submits that late Sri Rangacharyulu during his life time executed a registered Will dated 31.07.1954 authorising his wife to adopt a boy and after the death of Rangacharyulu, his wife Smt Venkata Narasamma adopted the petitioner in the year 1969. An adoption deed was also executed in the year 1970 and since then the petitioner has been rendering the Archakatvam service on rotation basis. In fact, the petitioner also filed the birth certificate issued by the Panchayat authorities. In so far as petitioners 2 to 4 is concerned, late Sri Lakshmanacharyulu executed a Will in the year 1969 in favour of Sri Vadavapalli Seetharamacharyulu, father of the petitioners 3 and 4 and Vadapalli Rangacharyulu, husband of 2 nd petitioner. Since then during life time, Sri Vadapalli Seetharamacharyulu and Sri Rangacharyulu rendered Archakatvam service and after the demise of Sri Seetharamacharyulu, the petitioners 3 and 4 are rendering the Archakatvam services. In so far the Will executed by Sri Lakshmanacharyulu, the trustees of the temple unanimously consented and permitted to render archakatvam service in the year 1976. As on today temple being 6(c) trustees are functioning. None of these documents were considered by the 3 rd respondent. In view of the orders passed by the 3 rd respondent, the respondents 5 to 7 are interfering with petitioners’ possession of agricultural lands. The order of the 3 rd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, non application of mind, violaitive of provisions of Act 30 of 1987. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 9. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, earlier the respondents 5 to 7 have filed O.S.No.88 of 1992 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta for declaring that the respondents 5 to 7 are only surviving hereditary archakas and to declare the adoption of 1 st petitioner as invalid. 9. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, earlier the respondents 5 to 7 have filed O.S.No.88 of 1992 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta for declaring that the respondents 5 to 7 are only surviving hereditary archakas and to declare the adoption of 1 st petitioner as invalid. Thereafter, the said suit was withdrawn as not pressed vide order dated 26.03.2008. The 1 st petitioner filed O.S.No.280 of 1989 to declare that he is the legal heir of Sri Rangacharyulu as he is adopted by his wife, in respect of a piece of land and the said suit was dismissed as that the 1 st petitioner is not eligible to declare as hereditary archaka as he was adopted son of Kandavalli Rangacharyulu. The 3 rd respondent after taking into consideration in respect of this issue, has passed a cogent order dated 15.06.2015. He further submits that if the petitioners have any grievance, they have to approach the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87 to get a declaration as Hereditary Archakas and they cannot direct the respondents 5 to 7 to approach the Endowments Tribunal to declare themselves as Hereditary Archakas. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 5 to 7 while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, the petitioners have no legal right to claim archakatvam in the 4 th respondent temple and the suit O.S.No.88/92 does not have any bearing on the claim of the petitioners. The suit O.S.No.280/89 filed by the petitioners on the file of District Munsif Court, Kothapeta was dismissed vide Judgment and Decree dated 10.04.1997 and the appeal filed against the said judgment was also dismissed and the findings recorded in the said O.S.No.280/89 also cannot be taken advantage by the petitioners. He further submits that, as a result of the proceedings of the 3 rd respondent, the 4 th respondent has issued a letter dated 30.06.2015, making clear that the respondents 5 to 7 are eligible to render archakatvam service on rotation basis in the temple and the petitioners are ineligible. He further submits that, as a result of the proceedings of the 3 rd respondent, the 4 th respondent has issued a letter dated 30.06.2015, making clear that the respondents 5 to 7 are eligible to render archakatvam service on rotation basis in the temple and the petitioners are ineligible. The petitioners have sought only suspension of the order of the 3 rd respondent and they did not choose to seek any direction on the consequential proceedings issued by the 4 th respondent and as such, the letter issued by the 4 th respondent has already been acted upon and the respondents 5 to 7 are rendering service in the 4 th respondent temple. Therefore, learned counsel prays to dismiss the writ petition. 11. Perused the record. 12. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the 3 rd respondent passed the impugned order, even though he was not the competent to decide the issue under Section 87 of the Act, to decide whether any person is entitled by custom or otherwise to any honour, emoluments or perquisites in any charitable are religious institutions are endowments etc., and Section 87 was substituted by Act 33 of 2007 with effect from 03.01.2008. As a result, the Endowment Tribunal was constituted and under Section 87(1)(e), the Tribunal has to decide with regard to the entitlement by custom or otherwise to any honour, emoluments etc. Further, Section 87(5) contemplates that till the constitution of the Endowments Tribunal, the Deputy Commissioner is competent to decide. But by the date of the enquiry conducted by the 3 rd respondent in the year 2015, the Tribunal was constituted and has been functioning. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, the 3 rd respondent has passed the impugned order dated 15.06.2015 without having power. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the opinion that, either of the parties has to approach the Endowment Tribunal for rendering archakatvam service in Venkateswara Swamy temple, Kothapeta. Therefore, this Court deems fit to dispose of the writ petition, with the following directions: i. The impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.A1/10036/2014, dated 15.06.2015 issued by the 3 rd respondent is hereby set aside. ii. Therefore, this Court deems fit to dispose of the writ petition, with the following directions: i. The impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.A1/10036/2014, dated 15.06.2015 issued by the 3 rd respondent is hereby set aside. ii. Granting liberty to either of the parties i.e., the writ petitioners as well as the respondents 5 to 7 to approach the Endowments Tribunal by way of filing Interlocutary Applications as well as Original Applications for redressal of their grievance, within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iii. On filing such applications, the Endowments Tribunal shall decide the same on merits within four (04) weeks thereafter. iv. Further, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioners for rendering archakatvam service in 4 th respondent temple, till disposal of the said Interlocutory Applications. 14. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.