(1.) The main question raised by Mr. Babulu Reddy learned counsel for the petitioners in this case is that the Government has no power to entertain a revision under Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Endowments Act (hereinafter called as the Act) against an interlocutory order passed by the Commissioner pending a revision before him. A few facts may be stated.
(2.) The respondents 4 to 10 were appointed as non-hereditary trustees for Sri Kanyakaparameswari Devasthanam, Chittoor by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments by his order dated 17-8-1978. Against that order the petitioners who claim that the said institution is a denominational institution filed a revision before the Joint Commissioner. Their contention is that the Assistant Commissioner had no power to appoint non- hereditary trustees for this institution. The revision was entertained by the Joint Commissioner who also granted an interim stay of the operation of the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Thereupon the non-hereditary trustees appeared before the Joint Commissioner and applied for vacating the interim stay. That was refused and the interim stay was made absolute. Against the order making the interim stay absolute, the non-hereditary trustees filed a revision before the Government under Section 83 of the Act which was entertained by the Government, which passed an interim order staying the operation of the orders of the Joint Commissioner pending disposal of the revision before the Government. It is the said order which is challenged in this writ petition.
(3.) Mr. Babulu Reddy learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the language of section 83 of the Act and particularly of sub-section (3) thereof, it must be held that no revision is maintainable against an Interlocutory order passed by the Commissioner. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 83 of the Act read as follows :-