IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 122 of 2003 Between: Sri D. Lachiram Naik s/o late Buchaiah Naik Committee of Swamy Hathiramji Mutt and Devotee of Sri Swamy Hathiramji, and the Mutt, R/o 16-2-51/F/5, Akber Bagh, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments Department, Tilak Road, Hyderabad 2 The Custodian Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupati, Chittoor District 3 The Executive Officer, TTD., Tirumala, Tirupati, Chittoor District 4 H.H. Arjun Dass, Mahant Chela of Guru devendra Dass, Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirumala, Tirupati .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.VIJAYANANDAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: G.P. for Endowments Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri K.V. N. Bhupal Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR.M.ADINARAYANA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent No.4: None The Court made the following : CVNR,J W.P. NO.122 OF 2003 The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to forbear from interfering with the administration of Swamy Hathiramji Mutt properties by altering, alienating or in any way changing the structure of the buildings belonging to the said Mutt situated at Tirumala. Heard the learned counsel for all the parties and perused the record. The petitioner who claims to be the disciple of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt is mainly aggrieved by the purported action of Respondent No.3 in seeking to demolish the structures of the Mutt for the purpose of raising Maha Prakaram. In paragraph-11 of the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Executive Oﬃcer of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, it is speciﬁcally averred that the Devasthanam never tried to demolish the Mutt properties and he further undertook that the Devasthanam would not interfere with the mutt properties in an unlawful manner. It is also stated that a small portion in front of the existing Mutt may be required for the construction of the proposed Maha Prakaram and that in such a case, it will be shifted backward with the consent of the Mutt and that any action in future will be done with the mutual consultation or through land acquisition process. Having regard to these categorical averments contained in the counter aﬃdavit of Respondent No.3, I do not ﬁnd any reason to give any direction to the respondents on the projected grievance of the petitioner. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.163 of 2003 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ___________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 20th October, 2008 pnb