THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6037 of 2011 Date:11.03.2011 Between: Sri Bommadevara Venkata and another ..... Petitioners AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Ch.Praveen Kumar for Sri Ch.Ravi Kumar Counsel for Respondent No.1: Government Pleader for Endowments Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3: Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, special standing counsel for TTD The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the resolution No.308 dated 20.01.2011 of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, Tirupati, as illegal and invalid. The petitioners claim to be donors for a project undertaken by respondent No.2 called Ananda Nilayam Anantha Swarnamayam. The said project fell in troubled waters with the institution of public interest litigation in this Court. The litigation, as all knew, went on for almost an year, during which the case was heard by a Division Bench of this Court on several occasions and eventually by judgment dated 29.11.2010 in W.P.No.9004 of 2010, the Division Bench has declared the project as illegal. It has come out at the hearing that the aggrieved parties have carried the matter to the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition and the Supreme Court by order dated 28.02.2011 stayed the operation of the judgment of this Court and the special leave petition is pending. Before this order was passed by the Supreme Court, respondent No.2, following the discussion in its meeting held on 20.01.2011, passed the following resolutions: “In the circumstances of the Hon’ble High Court setting aside the decisions taken to provide Gold coating to the main sanctum sanctorum, the salient points on the basis of which the Hon’ble High Court has set aside the Anandanilayam – Anantha Swarnamayam works is submitted for information and the following is placed before the Specified Authority for taking suitable decision. 1. In respect of Gold deposits and cash deposits received by TTD for Anandanilayam – Anantha Swarnamayam works an option may be given to the donors whether to receive back the Gold/Cash deposits made by them and if the donors are interested to receive back the same, suitable consent letters may be obtained from them to return and in this regard, the privileges may also be suitably withdrawn. 2. If donors are not interested to receive back the Gold, suitable consent may be obtained whether the same may be utilized by TTD for any other purposes including keeping the Gold as Treasure for Lord and in these cases, the existing privileges given under Anandanilayam – Anantha Swarnamayam works may be continued to them. 3. Similarly, if the donors are not interested to receive back the cash deposits made, an option may be taken from the donor to transfer the cash deposits made for Anandanilayam – Anantha Swarnamayam works to any other Trust/Trusts in TTD as the case may be and the privileges as offered in those trusts may be extended to them. In this regard Resolution No.466, extending the privileges to the donors for Anandanilayam – Ananthaswarnamayam works has to be set aside hence forth. 4. The copper designing works already prepared may be utilized for any other purposes in TTD and the usage of gold of 1.470.000 Kgs for malam works on the copper designed pillers which was taken up as instructed by the then Chairman may also be ratified.” Assailing these resolutions, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The main premise on which these resolutions have been questioned is that respondent No.2 failed to explore the alternative methods of fixing gold plating without driving nails into the walls affecting the scriptures, lipis etc., and that the resolutions are therefore in violation of the provisions of Section 97 of the Andhra Pradesh Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. After carefully hearing Sri Ch. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Ch. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned standing counsel for respondent No.2, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is wholly misconceived. As noted above, the public interest litigation was heard by this Court for a period of almost an year. The hearings of the case were widely published in the newspapers by way of news reports. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that they have tried to implead themselves in the cases nor they have at any time approached respondent No.2 with alternative suggestions. Having kept quiet during the course of hearing and allowed the judgment to be rendered, the petitioners cannot be allowed to find fault with the resolutions passed by respondent No.2 on the plea that they should have explored the alternative methods. It is also not the case of the petitioners that the Division Bench, while setting aside the project, has left respondent No.2 free to explore such alternative methods. Indeed, a perusal of the resolutions convinces this Court that in the aftermath of the judgment of the Division Bench, no alternative is left to respondent No.2 other than giving an option to the donors either to take back the gold or cash donated by them or permit the former to utilize for other purposes. This decision, in my opinion, is unexceptionable under the circumstances. If the petitioners are interested in suggesting alternative methods, they can intervene in the pending litigation before the Supreme Court and pursue their remedy therein. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.7531 and 7532 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim reliefs are dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th March, 2011 GHN