IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 12999 of 2009 Between: 1 Tontepu Ganga Bhavani W/o. T. Sitarama Swamy D.No. 7-26-8/A, Maturivari Street, T. Nagar, Rajahmundry, E.G. District. 2 Peyyala Chakravarthy S/o. Venkat Raju C/o. K. Veerabhadra Rao, R/o. Veera Raghava Puram, Samalkot, E.G. District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada. 2 The Tahsildar, Samalkot Mandal, East Godavari District 3 The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, (A Government of India Company), rep. by its General Manager. 4 The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, (A Government of India Company), rep. by its Regional Manager, Petronilayam, opp. AU in Gate, Visakhapatnam. 5 K. Supreem Babu S/o. Ramakrishna C/o. H.P.C.L. Petrol Bunk, Near Railway Station, Samalkot, East Godavari District 6 Yarlagadda Srinivas S/o. Venkatramana R/o. D.No. 13-3-50/1, Golivari Street, Samalkot, East Godavari District 7 Nookalamma Temple, Near Railway Station, Samalkot, rep. by its Trust Board Chairman Shir Yarlagadda Srinivas S/o. Venkataramana, Golivari Street, Samalkot, East Godavari District 8 Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada, East Godavari District .....RESPONDENTS 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, by quashing the proceedings dated 21.4.2009 in O.A.No.38 of 2009 and interlocutory application I.A.No.11 of 2009 on the file of the 8th respondent herein, as capricious, illegal without jurisdiction and is manipulative and fraud on the process of the court, besides being violative of principles of audi-altrum-patrum and principles of natural justice and violative of Sec.83 of the Act and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.SIVANANDA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.12999 of 2009 Order: The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners and possessors of property bearing D.No.13-6-25 situated at Devi Chowk, Samalkot Mandal, East Godavari District, having succeeded to the same. They state that initially in the year 1935, the said property was leased out to one Standard Vaccum Oil Company, Madras which established a petrol bunk therein with the licence given by the then District Collector, Cocanada, dated 15.08.1935. Subsequently, the profile of the business changed from company to company and ultimately, M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation is running the same. While so, it is the case of the petitioners that the seventh respondent, Sri Nookalamma Temple, rep. by its Trust Board Chairman, filed O.A.No.38 of 2009 before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada against M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and one Sri K.Supreme Babu, who is the licensee of the Corporation to run the bunk, seeking eviction from the schedule premises, on the ground that they are the encroachers as defined under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. Pending the O.A., the seventh respondent also filed I.A.No.11 of 2009 seeking directions to the respondents therein from inducting third parties in the schedule premises and also restraining M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited from renewing the licence for conducting petrol business in the schedule premises. Through his order, dated 21.04.2009, the Deputy Commissioner, after considering the material on record and hearing the arguments of the petitioner therein, issued directions as prayed for in the I.A., and posted the matter to 09.06.2009 for filing counter by the respondents therein. It is this order which is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that without notice and without making the petitioners as parties to the proceedings, though they are necessary parties, the impugned order is came to be passed. Admittedly, the O.A., filed by the seventh respondent against respondent Nos.4 and 5 is pending. If the petitioners have any right, title or interest over the schedule premises, they are always at liberty to get themselves impleaded in the proceedings pending before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada and agitate their rights. But, straightaway they cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seek directions from this Court. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 15.07.2009 VGB