IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 19131 of 2001 Between: Sri Arya Vysya Kalyna Nilaya Sangam, Rep. by its Secretary, Sri. Vakati Venkateshwar Kumar, (Regd. No.40/1967) (H.O) 18/201, Sikharamvari Street, Chinna Bazar, Dr.No.294 (Old), Nellore -524 001. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P. Hyderabad. 3 Deputy Comissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur -A.P. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the threatened interference of the respondents herein to take over the petitioner institution without notice and without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, unfair, without jursdiction, contrary to the provisions of the Act and unsustainable and consequently directing the petitioner to continue the management finances and administration of the petitioner institution of both 1 and 2 as before and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SRINIVASA VARADA CHARY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MADHURI} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 19137 of 2001 Between: Sri Kanyaka Parameshwari Devasthanam Rep. by its Sri. Gowri Mohan Rao, President, Gudur, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secreary to Government, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner, Endowments Department A.P. Hyderabad. 3 Deputy Commissioiner, Endowments Department, Guntur Town, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more preferably one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the threatened interference of the respondents to take over the petitioner temple by issuing rc no. g2/46605/2001-34 dated 31.8.2001 on the file of the second respondent herein, without any notice and without following due process of law and cortrary to the provisions of the a.p charitable and hindu religious and endowments act 1987 (act 30 of 1987) as illegal arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, unfair, without jurisdiction and unsustainable and consequently directing the managing body of the petitioner temple to continue its management, finances and administrations as before and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SRINIVASA VARADA CHARY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSKM} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.Nos.19131 & 19137 of 2001 COMMON ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments, representing the respondents. 2. The petitioner in W.P.No.19137 of 2001 is the Devasthanam, which is managed by the petitioner in W.P.No.19131 of 2001. The writ petitions were filed almost for identical relief complaining of interference by the respondents and threat of taking over the Devasthanam. 3. During the pendency of these writ petitions, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms.No.1572 Revenue (Endowments.I/1) Department, dated 24-10-2006, where under, by exercising powers under Section 154 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity ‘the Act’), all Sri Kanyaka Parameshwari Temples, which are independently managed by the registered Arya Vysya Associations, are exempted from operations of Sections 15 and 29 of the Act. 4. In the view of the said G.O., therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners about interference by the revenue authorities does not survive and since the substantive grievance of the petitioners is already met by the Government itself, no further orders are necessary to be passed. 5. In view of the above, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. ______________________ 23rd January 2009 KVR