ORDER : E.V.VENUGOPAL, J. 1. Questioning the action of the 3 rd respondent in issuing notice in Form-II dated 12.7.2016 bearing Rc.No.F2/03581/2016-3 directing the petitioner to make an application for registration under sub-Section (1) of Section 43 of the Act, as being illegal, arbitrary, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he constructed Mahashakthi Temple in the year 2010 with an amount of Rs.2.00 crores. Soon after completion of the temple, the Prathista and Kumbhabisekam were done by the Holy hands of Sri Sri Sri Jagadguru Shankaracharya, Sri Hampi Virupaksha Vidyaranya Maha Samsthanam, Sri Vidyaranya Bharathi Swamiji from 13.6.2010 to 17.6.2010. The temple is located in and around one acre of land in Chaitanyapuri colony with pucca compound wall. The temple is dedicated to (i) Sri Maha Durga (ii) Sri Maha Lakshmi and (iii) Sri Maha Saraswathi and therefore it is named as "Maha Shakthi Peetam". 3. Soon after completion of Kumbhabisekham, the temple management has been handed over to Sri Sri Sri Vidyaranya Bharathi Swamiji to administer the management of the temple including day-to-day affairs of the temple such as Nitya Pooja, Periodical festivals and annual festivals etc. His Holiness Swamiji accepted the same on 21.6.2010 and appointed the petitioner as an Agent of Hampi Vidyaranya Peetam with a direction to conduct all religious and social activities in the temple only after taking prior permission of the Swamiji. Since then, the management of the temple is in the independent hands of His Holiness Sri Vidyaranya Barathi Swamiji through the petitioner. Since then regular rituals and annual festivals are being performed by the petitioner as per Agama Sasthras without any complaint from any corner. 4. It is submitted that there are no hundies kept in the temple and also there are no Pooja Rusums collected from the devotees at any point of time and the total expenditure is being met by the petitioner as an Agent of the Mutt and his family members with the knowledge of His Holiness Vidyaranya Bharathi Swamy Varu. There are some works yet to be completed and the management has also conducted the Annual Day function, Sri Rama Navami and Dasara Navarathrulu festivals and the management of the temple is in the Holi hands of His Holiness Vidyaranya Bharathi Swamiji. There are some works yet to be completed and the management has also conducted the Annual Day function, Sri Rama Navami and Dasara Navarathrulu festivals and the management of the temple is in the Holi hands of His Holiness Vidyaranya Bharathi Swamiji. As per the directions of the Swamiji, the petitioner being an Agent and Dharmakartha is looking after the day-to-day affairs of the temple without any complaint and the sacred premises of the temple is being safeguarded by the present Management. 5. It is submitted that while being so, the 3 rd respondent herein issued the impugned notice in Form-II dated 12.7.2016 bearing Rc.No.F2/03581/2016-3 asking the petitioner to make an application for registration of the temple under Sub-Section (1) of Section 43 of the said Act within 30 days. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is no income to the temple and the maintenance expenses are met by the petitioner in the capacity of Agent and Dharmakartha and his family members and therefore it is too early to take over the petitioner temple into the fold of Endowments Department. It is his further grievance that if the present management by His Holiness Swamiji is not disturbed the proposed major construction works will also be completed and since there is no income to the temple and the maintenance expenses are met by the petitioner himself in the capacity of Agent and Dharmakartha and his family members, directing the petitioner to make application to register the temple with the Endowment Department is not legal. 7. The petitioner submits that he made an application before the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 08.8.2016 reiterating the above said facts and requested to grant exemption in terms of Section 154 of the Endowment Act. The said application is pending for consideration and in the meantime, the 3 rd respondent is making hectic attempts to register the petitioner temple as Endowment and in such an event, manifest injustice will be caused to the petitioner and all the amounts spent by him for the development of the temple will be proved futile. In the instant case, without there being any publication of list and without ascertaining the fact as to the income of the petitioner temple, issued the impugned notice without any authority. In the instant case, without there being any publication of list and without ascertaining the fact as to the income of the petitioner temple, issued the impugned notice without any authority. In view of the above, the impugned notice issued by the 3rd respondent dated 12.7.2016 is vitiated and does not stand to judicial scrutiny. Hence the present writ petition. 8. The third respondent - Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Karimnagar District filed counter affidavit on behalf of all the official respondents stating that the temple in question i.e., Sri Maha Shakti Temple Situated at Chaitanyapuri area in Karimnagar Town and District is a public temple covered under the provisions of the Section 1(3)(b) of the Telangana Endowments Act 30 of 1987. It is submitted that the subject temple is being managed and administered by the Hon'ble Minister of State for Home Affairs Government of India & Member of Parliament Sri Bandi Sanjay Kumar and his family members in the capacity of self-styled Dharmakartha. It is said that the subject temple is being run under the administrative directions of Sri Hampi Virupaksha Vidyaranya Peetham, Karnataka. However, it is categorically stated that there are no express orders from the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad U/s. 145 of the Endowments Act 30 of 1987 ratifying the adoption of the subject temple by Sri Jagadguru Shankaracharya Sri Hampi Virupaksha Vidyaranya Bharathi Swamiji Peetam, Karnataka. 9. It is submitted that the subject temple is not a private temple but a public Hindu Religious Institution which is accessible to the general public and devotees at large. Mere absence of hundials, money collection for Pooja rusums will not characterize the public religious institution as a private institution. 10. It is submitted that the 2 nd respondent had issued notice to the Petitioner to submit proposals for the registration of the subject temple U/s. 43(1) of the Endowments Act 30/1987. In reply thereof, the Petitioner has furnished a reply to the Commissioner, Endowments Department, and subsequently no further action was initiated under Section 44 of the Endowments Act 30/1987 for the registration of Subject temple. Further it is reiterated that the Section 1(3) (b) of the Endowments Act 30 of 1987 applies to all Hindu public religious institutions and endowments whether registered or not in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Further it is reiterated that the Section 1(3) (b) of the Endowments Act 30 of 1987 applies to all Hindu public religious institutions and endowments whether registered or not in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Hence, the above provisions are clear enough to confer the powers upon the Commissioner, Endowments Department to issue the impugned notice for registration of the subject temple. 11. It is further submitted that the petitioner herein is taking contradictory stands. At one point he states that the subject temple is under the management and administration of Sri Jagadguru Shankaracharya Sri Hampi Virupaksha Vidyaranya Bharathi Swamiji Peetam, Karnataka and on the other hand he states that his application for grant of exemption U/s. 154 of the Endowments Act 30 of 1987 is pending consideration before the Endowments Department. Both of these contradictory stands are enough to destroy the case of the petitioner herein. It is further submitted that mere pendency of the application for the grant of exemption is not a ground for assailing the impugned notice for the registration of the subject temple. It is also submitted that by the presence of the Endowments Department authorities there may not be any hindrance in the developmental activities of the subject temple and the fears of the petitioner herein are baseless and unfounded. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are several temples which are not touched by Endowment Department viz., Sri Balaji Temple, Chilkur village, Sri Subramanya Swamy Temple at Skandagiri, Secunderabad, Sri jagdeesh Mandir, Lower Tank bund, Hyderabad and Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Tabdund etc., and those temples were exempted from the operation of Endowments Act U/Sec.154 of the Act and the same are being now managed without any interference of the Endowment Department. Hence he requested that the respondents shall also follow the same procedure as was adopted in respect of those temples. 13. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is maintaining the temple with his own money and under the management and administration of Sri Jagadguru Shankaracharya Sri Hampi Virupaksha Vidyaranya Bharathi Swamiji Peetam, Karnataka and that there are no hundials and no rusums are being collected for performance of any puja or some other like rituals. 13. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is maintaining the temple with his own money and under the management and administration of Sri Jagadguru Shankaracharya Sri Hampi Virupaksha Vidyaranya Bharathi Swamiji Peetam, Karnataka and that there are no hundials and no rusums are being collected for performance of any puja or some other like rituals. Therefore, it is not just and proper on the part of the respondents to issue the impugned notice asking him to apply for registration of the temple with the Endowments Department is illegal. It is his further grievance that if the present management by His Holiness Swamiji is not disturbed the proposed major construction works will also be completed and since there is no income to the temple and the maintenance expenses are met by the petitioner himself in the capacity of Agent and Dharmakartha and his family members, directing the petitioner to make application to register the temple with the Endowment Department is not legal. 14. However, on the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Endowments that though the petitioner was issued a notice under Section 43 (1) of the Act, yet, no further action has been initiated under Section 44 of the Act. Further, it is to be seen from the record and as admitted by the petitioner himself, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent authorities to consider his case under Section 154 of the Act. Section 6 of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1987 read as follows:- "6. Preparation and publication of list of charitable and religious institutions and endowments on the basis of income:- a) (i) the charitable institutions and endowments/or (ii) the religious institutions and endowments other than Mutts, whose annual income as calculated for the purpose of levy of contribution U/Sec.65 (exceeds rupees twenty five lakhs) b) (i) the charitable institutions and endowments; (ii) the religious institutions and endowments, other than Mutts whose annual income calculated as aforesaid (exceeds rupees two lakhs but does not exceeds rupees twenty five lakhs) c) (i) the charitable institutions and endowments; or (ii) the religious institutions and endowments other than Mutts not falling under clause (a) or clause (b); d) the Mutts irrespective of the income; e) the Dharmadayam irrespective of the income” 15. In the instant case, it is not the plea of the respondents that they have calculated or arrived at a conclusion that the subject temple is getting an annual income of more than Rs.25.00 lakhs or above, for the purpose of levy of contribution U/Sec.65 as required under Section 6 (a) (i) or under Section 6 (a) (ii) of the Act. 16. Further, it is the case of both the petitioner as well as the official respondents that the petitioner made a representation under Section 154 of the Act seeking the relief of exemption. Section 154 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 reads as follows: The Government may by notification, exempt from the operation of any of the provisions of this Act or any of the rules made there under – (a) any charitable institution or endowment the administration of which was or is for the time being vested – (i) in the Government either directly or through a Committee or Treasurer of Endowments, appointed for the purpose; (ii) in the official Trustee or in the Administrator General; (b) any charitable institution or endowment founded for educational purpose or for providing medical relief; or (c) any institution or endowment which is being well managed by the founder; or (d) any institution or endowment; and may likewise vary or cancel such exemption. 17. Though the petitioner made a representation to the respondent authorities on 08.8.2016, even after lapse of nine years, no action has been initiated by the respondent authorities for Preparation and publication of list of charitable and religious institutions and to ascertain whether the subject temple falls under the category of Section 6 of the Act. The respondents ought to have considered the said representation and taken appropriate steps in that regard. 18. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed, the notice in Form-II dated 12.7.2016 bearing Rc.No.F2/03581/2016-3 by the third respondent is set aside. The respondents ought to have considered the said representation and taken appropriate steps in that regard. 18. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed, the notice in Form-II dated 12.7.2016 bearing Rc.No.F2/03581/2016-3 by the third respondent is set aside. However, in view of the above provisions of law and also in view of the fact that mere absence of hundials, money collection for Pooja rusums will not characterize the public religious institution as a private institution and since Section 1(3) (b) of the Endowments Act 30 of 1987 applies to all Hindu public religious institutions and endowments whether registered or not in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the respondent authorities are hereby directed to consider the representation dated 08.8.2016 made by the petitioner for the purpose of giving relief of exemption to the subject temple under Section 154 of the Act as expeditious as possible, preferably, within three months. 19. Miscellaneous petitions if any shall also stand disposed of.