Subba Reddy Satti, J.

1. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

"... to issue a writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus ...

(a)To declare the proceedings in R.Dis. No. 12024(42)/1/ 2021, date 05.08.2022 of the 2nd respondent i.e., Commissioner of Endowments, A.P., Vijayawada granting exemption under the provisions of Act 30/87 except Sec.80 to the 6th respondent institution as bad, illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to Section 154 of the Act 30/1987 and set aside the same;

(b) and consequently direct the respondents that the affairs of the 6th respondent institution Sri Nalamvari Choultry, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District to be continued to be administered by the Endowment Department through the Executive Officer appointed Unser Section 29 of Act 30/87

(c) and pass such other order or orders as the Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case".

2. The 6th respondent, a charitable trust, having income of more than Rs. 50.00 lakhs, is notified under Section 6(a) of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act. The 6th respondent institution came into existence with effect from 24.10.1879. The Satram was founded by late Sri Nalam Ramalingam, in the name of Sri Vysya Seva Sadan for women education and also Schools and Colleges. After the death of the founder, his grand-son namely Ramalingaiah started distributing free food to female students. The institution was also registered under Section 43 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short "the Act") and also registered under Section 38(E) of the Old Act i.e. the Act 17 of 1966 and subsequently registered under Section 43 of Act 30/87. The Choultry got 40 shops within and abutting the Choultry and is receiving rents from the shops. Three more buildings were endowed to the institution. The father of the 7th respondent acted as founder family member. In the year 1979, Executive Officer was appointed to the 6th respondent institution. The 7th respondent approached the 2nd respondent seeking exemption of 7th respondent from the provisions of Sections 15 and 29 of Act 30/87. The 2nd respondent in turn, issued proceedings in R.Dis. No. 12024 (42)/1/2021, dated 05.08.2022 granting exemption to the 6th respondent institution from the provisions of Sections 15 and 29 of Act 30/87. Assailing the same, the above writ petition is filed.

3. Counter-affidavits were filed by the respondents 2 and 7. It was contended that the 1st respondent in exercise of powers under Section 154 of the Act, issued G.O.Ms. No. 306 Revenue (Endts.II) Department, dated 05.11.2021 granting exemption to all the Vsavi Kanyaka Parameswari Choultries/Anna satrams established and being managed by the Arya Vysya Community Committees from the operation of all the provisions of the Act, 1987, except Section 80 of the Act, with a condition that if any irregularities are found in the administration, the Government will cancel the exemption to the said Choultry/Anna satram without any notice. Pursuant to the G.O.Ms. No. 306, the 2nd respondent issued the proceedings impugned by setting out modalities. The 2nd respondent has not exercised the jurisdiction independently and thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Heard Sri V.S.K.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5, Sri Kanda Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent and Sri V.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 7th respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 2nd respondent exceeded its jurisdiction and issued the proceedings impugned in the writ petition. He would also contend that the 2nd respondent is not competent to exempt the institution from the provisions of 15 and 29 of the Act 30/87. Learned counsel in support of his argument, placed reliance on the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 11011 of 2013.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel as well as learned Assistant Government pleader would contend that the 2nd respondent on its own did not exempt the institution from the provisions of Act 30 of 87. Pursuant to G.O.Ms. No. 306, dated 05.11.2021, the Government exempted all the Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Choultries/Anna satrams and passed the order with certain conditions. They would also contend that the ratio in W.P. No. 11011 of 2013 has no application to the facts of the case in hand.

7. The point for consideration is:

"Whether the order passed by the 2nd respondent, impugned in the writ petition, is an exemption under Section 154 of the Act or consequential order pursuant to the G.O.Ms. No. 306, dated 05.11.2021"

8. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No. 306, dated 05.11.2021 exempting all the Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Choultries/Anna satrams established and being managed by the Arya Vysya Community Committees from the operation of all the provisions of the Act 30 of 1987,except Section 80 of the Act. The said G.O. further indicates that if any irregularities are found in the administration, the Government will cancel the exemption to the said Choultry/Anna satram without any notice.

9. Section 154 of the Act, 1987 which is relevant is extracted hereunder:

"154. Exemptions-The Government may by notification, exempt from the operation of any of the provisions of this Act or any of the rules made thereunder-

(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"

10. As seen from the extracted portion, the Government may by notification, exempt from the operation or any provisions of this Act or Rules made thereunder, any charitable institution or Endowment the administration founded for educational purpose or any institution or endowment which is being well managed by the founder or any institution or endowment. Section 154 of the Act also mandates that any such exemption can be cancelled by the Government. G.O.Ms. No. 306 dated 5-11-2021 was issued exempting certain institutions viz., petitioner from the operation of the Act.

11. 7th respondent sought exemption of the institution as per G.O.Ms. No. 306, dated 05.11.2021. 7th respondent-the Chairman of Nalam Choultry submitted notarized affidavit dated 05.04.2022 seeking to transfer the Management of the subject Choultry from the Executive Officer. The 2nd respondent-Commissioner, Endowments Department acting upon the G.O.Ms. No. 306 has withdrawn the institution from the Executive Officer and handed over the same to the 7th respondent with certain conditions by proceedings dated 05.08.2022 impugned in the writ petition.

12. Though learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the proceedings impugned dated 05.08.2022, per se, is an exemption order however, as seen from the proceedings, the 2nd respondent has withdrawn the Executive Officer with certain conditions pursuant to G.O.Ms. No. 306, dated 05.11.2021.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 11011 of 2013. In that case, the Commissioner granted exemption of Sections 15 and 29 of the Act 1987 and the same is impugned in the writ petition therein. In view of the language employed in Section 154 of the Act, writ petition was allowed leaving it open to the 3rd respondent to approach appropriate authority. In view of the same, the ratio laid in W.P. No. 11010 has no application to the facts of the case on hand.

14. In view of the discussion above, this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned, per se, is not an exemption order and this is only notification pursuant to G.O.Ms. No. 306, dated 05.11.2021. The writ petition is devoid of merits and hence, liable to be dismissed.

15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

16. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.