ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Charitable & Religious Endowments — Founder family — Status — Recognition Where the petitioner was already recognised and declared as a member of the founder family under valid Government Orders, such status continues unless the earlier orders are modified, cancelled or superseded in accordance with law, and the petitioner has locus standi to challenge subsequent Government Orders affecting such status. (Paras 46–55, 58–59, 69–71, 92

Wednesday, January 14, 2026

Charitable & Religious Endowments — Founder family — Status — Recognition Where the petitioner was already recognised and declared as a member of the founder family under valid Government Orders, such status continues unless the earlier orders are modified, cancelled or superseded in accordance with law, and the petitioner has locus standi to challenge subsequent Government Orders affecting such status. (Paras 46–55, 58–59, 69–71, 92–95)

advocatemmmohan

Charitable & Religious Endowments — Founder family — Status — Recognition

Where the petitioner was already recognised and declared as a member of the founder family under valid Government Orders, such status continues unless the earlier orders are modified, cancelled or superseded in accordance with law, and the petitioner has locus standi to challenge subsequent Government Orders affecting such status.
(Paras 46–55, 58–59, 69–71, 92–95)

A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 — Section 17 — Founder family — Order of preference

Explanation II to Section 17(1) mandates recognition of members of the founder family in agnatic line of succession, giving preference to children over grandchildren, and such recognition arises only upon vacancy; plurality of founder family members is not contemplated when a recognised founder family member is already in office.
(Paras 77–79, 89–91, 105–109)

Endowments Law — Abolition of hereditary trusteeship — Effect

Abolition of hereditary trusteeship under Section 16 of Act 30 of 1987 does not obliterate the concept of founder or member of founder family under Section 17, nor does it negate observance of established usage, custom and wishes of the founder recognised earlier by competent authority.
(Paras 72–76, 80–83)

Endowments Register — Section 38 of Act 17 of 1966 / Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987

Entries in the Endowments Register recognising founder and succession remain operative and binding under Section 155(2)(a) of Act 30 of 1987 until modified, cancelled or superseded in accordance with law.
(Paras 57–59, 65–69)

Appointment of Trustees — Mandatory procedure

Recognition of founder family members and appointment as trustees must strictly comply with Section 17(3) of Act 30 of 1987 and the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987; failure to call for applications, verify antecedents and follow prescribed procedure vitiates the appointment.
(Paras 110–114)

Endowments Law — Rotation — No statutory sanction

Appointment of Chairman/Trustee on “rotation basis” is not contemplated under Act 30 of 1987; invocation of a concept omitted from the present Act amounts to an impermissible and illegal exercise of power.
(Paras 118–123)

Natural Justice — Removal / replacement of Chairman

Where a person is holding office as Chairman/Trustee by virtue of recognition as a founder family member, replacement without notice and opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice and causes prejudice.
(Paras 126–131)

Hindu Succession Act — Inapplicability

Reference to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in recognising founder family members or appointing trustees under Act 30 of 1987 is misconceived and legally untenable, as trusteeship is not coparcenary property.
(Paras 98–104)

Judicial Review — Colourable exercise of power

Government Orders issued to accommodate a particular individual, ignoring statutory provisions, procedure, usage, and without reasons, constitute colourable exercise of power, arbitrariness and abuse of authority, warranting interference under Article 226.
(Paras 143–144)

Alternative Remedy — Section 87 — No bar

Existence of an alternative remedy under Section 87 of Act 30 of 1987 does not bar exercise of writ jurisdiction where impugned Government Orders suffer from patent illegality, arbitrariness and violation of natural justice.
(Paras 145–149)

Relief — Restoration of status

Setting aside illegal Government Orders revives and restores earlier valid Government Orders recognising and appointing the petitioner as Chairman/Trustee of the Temple Trust and Chairman of MANSAS Trust.
(Paras 152–154)

ANALYSIS (PARA-WISE SYNTHESIS)

Status and locus of petitioner (Paras 46–55, 92–95)
The Court found that the petitioner was continuously recognised as a founder family member and Chairman under subsisting Government Orders, never cancelled or superseded, thereby conferring unquestionable locus standi.
Founder family concept post-abolition (Paras 72–83)
While hereditary trusteeship stands abolished, the statutory recognition of founder or founder family member under Section 17 survives, requiring adherence to usage, custom and founder’s wishes.
Statutory scheme under Sections 15, 17 and 22 (Paras 77–79, 105–109)
Appointment arises only upon vacancy; recognition of multiple founder family members when a recognised member is already in office is impermissible.
Procedural illegality (Paras 110–114)
The mandatory procedure for appointment of trustees was wholly bypassed, rendering the impugned G.Os. void.
Rotation and removal without cause (Paras 118–123)
Rotation has no statutory basis; removal of the petitioner without invoking Section 22 grounds was illegal.
Violation of natural justice (Paras 126–131)
Absence of notice and hearing vitiated the entire exercise.
Misuse of Hindu Succession Act (Paras 98–104)
Trusteeship was wrongly equated to property rights under succession law.
Colourable exercise and arbitrariness (Paras 143–144)
The Court concluded that the G.Os. were issued only to accommodate Respondent No.4.
Maintainability of writ petitions (Paras 145–149)
Given the illegality and arbitrariness, writ jurisdiction was properly invoked.
Final relief (Paras 152–154)
All impugned G.Os. were set aside; petitioner’s earlier appointments were restored; the writ by Respondent No.6 was dismissed.

RATIO DECIDENDI

Recognition as a founder family member under Section 17 of the A.P. Act 30 of 1987, once validly granted and not superseded, continues to confer locus and statutory protection.
Abolition of hereditary trusteeship does not negate observance of founder’s wishes, usage and custom recognised under the Endowments law.
Recognition of founder family members and appointment of trustees must strictly follow the procedure prescribed under Section 17(3) and the Rules; deviation renders the action void.
Appointment or replacement of a Chairman/Trustee on a “rotation basis” has no sanction under Act 30 of 1987 and is illegal.
Replacement of a serving Chairman/Trustee without notice and hearing violates natural justice and vitiates the action.
Trusteeship under the Endowments Act is not governed by the Hindu Succession Act; reliance on Section 6 thereof is legally untenable.
Government Orders issued to favour a particular individual, ignoring statutory mandates, amount to colourable exercise of power and are liable to be quashed under Article 226.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN