THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No. 26730 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners are legal representatives of late R.Dandapani. The barbers functioning at Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam used to be given badges, not only for the purpose of identification, but also as a measure of recognition of their hereditary rights. One P. Muna Swamy was issued badge No.185. His son by name, Muni Krishnaiah was a minor, by the time Muna Swamy died. The badge was temporarily transferred with the consent of the family of Muna Swamy, in favour of Dandapani. After Muni Krishnaiah became major, he requested the Devasthanam for restoration of the membership and badge. To resist that, Dandapani filed O.S.No.779 of 1994 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, for perpetual injunction. He obtained an order of temporary injunction in I.A.No.1349 of 1998. Muni Krishnaiah filed C.R.P.No.2773 of 1998 before this Court, and the order of temporary injunction was suspended, on 24-02-1998. As a result, the Devasthanam cancelled the membership of Dandapani and restored the same to Muni Krishnaiah, through memo dated 06-08- 1998. This writ petition is filed challenging the said memo. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that his clients have been pursuing the remedies in various courts for the past several years, and ultimately this writ petition had to be filed. He contends that the hereditary rights of persons working in the Hindu religious institutions were abolished through Act 30 of 1997, and thereby, the membership of Dandapani remained intact. He submits that on the death of Dandapani, the petitioners are entitled for being conferred with the benefit of compassionate appointment, etc. Learned Standing counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the writ petition is barred by laches, and is not maintainable on facts, or in law. He contends that the rights of the parties have already been adjudicated by the Civil Courts, and no scope for interference, by this Court. The petitioners challenge the memo of the year 1998, after lapse of 12 years. By any standard, the writ petition is barred by laches. Neither Dandapani, during his lifetime, nor the petitioners herein, after his death, have chosen to challenge the impugned order, over the years. Further, the memo was issued as a result of the interim orders passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.2773 of 1998, to which Dandapani was a party. If the civil litigation is still pending, the petitioners have to pursue the same. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, observed that the case is in civil litigation, and in relation to the dispute is still pending, it shall be open to the petitioners to pursue the same in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.15-11-2010. KO