KALE SRINIVASULU Vs. M.VENKATESWARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Srinivasulu Kurra, learned counsel for respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondents No.2 to 4 and Mr. G. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

(2.) This appeal is preferred against the order dated 12.02.2021 passed by learned single Judge in W.P.No.12 of 2021 setting aside G.O.Rt.No.944 Revenue (Endowments. II) Department, dated 11.12.2020 issued by the 1st respondent in the writ petition, constituting the Board of Trustees for the 4th respondent temple in the writ petition, leaving it open to the respondent authorities to reconstitute the Board, in accordance with law.

(3.) The present appeal is preferred by respondent No.7 in the writ petition. Respondent Nos.6 to 13 in the writ petition were the members of the Trust Board constituted by G.O.Rt.No.994, dated 11.12.2020. In the order under challenge, it was recorded that the private respondents were represented by Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy. However, Mr. Nagendra Reddy submits that he had appeared only for respondent No.7, who was the Chairman of the Board of Trustees. Though a dispute is sought to be raised, it is relevant to note that the Chairman of the Board of Trustees had been heard and therefore, it is not necessary for us to go into that arena as to whether notice was issued to all the respondents, as in our considered opinion, the Chairman had put forward the case on behalf of the Board, thereby trying to protect the interest of all the members.