HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.17509 OF 2009 Dt.27.8.2009 Between: 1. Rayala Venkateswara Rao and another … Petitioners and 1. The Govt. of A.P. rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowment-Dept.), and four others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.17509 OF 2009 O R D E R: The matter is coming up for admission. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments had taken notice on behalf of R.1 to R.3 and Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel had taken notice on behalf of R.4. Sri K.Chidambaram had lodged caveat on behalf of R.5 and had taken notice on behalf of R.5. The matter was adjourned from 24.8.2009 to 26.8.2009 and again the matter is coming up for admission today. The main grievance ventilated by Sri K.Ananda Rao, the learned counsel representing the petitioners is that the second respondent had not given an opportunity of hearing while making the impugned order and hence the same is liable to be set aside and an opportunity to be given to the petitioners. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri V.T.M.Prasad, representing R.1 to R.3 and R.4 respectively would submit that even on a cursory glance of the representation, though it was made by several villagers, the present writ petition is filed only by two of such villagers. Even otherwise, the said representation also had been taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P., Hyderabad and specifically it was observed that the Executive Officer of the Temple and the Chairman of the Trust Board stated that they are not going to disturb the Mulavirat as decided by the petitioners, and accordingly, the petition was disposed of. Hence, no prejudice was caused to the petitioners. Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel representing R.5 also would submit that R.5 and the other members concerned with the Trust Board also are interested in protecting the interest of the institution. It is not at all true that they are doing something to harm the institution. Hence, in the facts and circumstances especially in view of the fact that the responsible Officer, the 2nd respondent on consideration of the contents of the representation, made the said order and it may not be just and proper to disturb the said order in the interest of the institution. Heard the counsel. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.G2/21109/2009 dated 22.7.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent without hearing the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and to pass such other suitable orders. It is stated that the 3rd respondent issued proceedings in D.Dis.No.A2/1379/08 dated 01.03.2008. It is stated that the petitioners and other villagers have made a representation to the 2nd respondent on 24.4.2008. This Court in W.P.No.10594 of 2008 filed by the petitioners passed interim order on 07.05.2008 and on 23.6.2008 the interim order was extended until further orders. Further it is stated that on hearing either side counsel this Court was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition after giving opportunity to these petitioners. It is also stated that as per the brief report submitted by the Assistant Director, Museum, Kakinada dated 17.6.2008 the Ratnalamma Temple has got ancient history and the stone sculpture, and the same should be preserved. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as hereunder: “Accordingly, notices were sent to the applicants as well as the Executive Officer and Chairman of Trust Board of the subject temple to appear before this authority for enquiry. The matter came up before me on 27.6.2009 at 11.00 AM. The petitioner is called absent. The Chairman and the Executive Officer of Sri Ratnalamma Amma vari Temple Ratnalakunta village, Pedavegi Mandal, West Godavari District appeared on behalf of the temple. Called for the record and perused. I have gone through the material available as well as the representation of the applicants and heard the E.O. and Chairman of the Temple. The Executive Officer of the Temple and the Chairman of the Trust Board stated that they are not going to disturb the Moolapeetham as desired by the petitioners. Hence, with the same direction the petition is disposed of.” It was recorded that the petitioners were called absent. Certain submissions were made and in the light of the same, it may not have to be taken that no opportunity had been given to the petitioners and if the petitioners had been given an opportunity, they would have represented several other further details as well. As can be seen from the representation, as many as 55 members made the said representation, no doubt, only two writ petitioners at present are challenging the impugned proceeding. As can be seen from the representation in the concluding portion, it is specified that if the Mulavirat is continued as it is, without any disturbance whatsoever, and if the Garbagudi is not removed as far as the other developmental activities are concerned, the villagers of the village have no objection. It is no doubt true that non-disturbing of Garbagudi had not been specifically specified by the 2nd respondent in the order under challenge. It is pertinent to note that the 2nd respondent is a responsible Officer and the 4th and 5th respondents also are no doubt responsible to see and to protect the institution. This Court thus hope that the wishes of the villagers also would be taken into consideration especially, in the light of the safeguard, which had been already given by the 2nd respondent in the order under challenge. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ P.S.NARAYANA,J 27th August, 2009. PNV