IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 18588 of 2008 Between: T.T.D. Licence Porters Welfare Society (Regn. No. 690/03), Tirumala, rep. by its President, J.V. Narasimha Murthy, aged about 60 Years, R/o. No. 68, Kesavayanaguta, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Board of Trustees, Rep. by its Chairman, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupathi. 2 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Tirupathi. 3 Health Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirumala, Tirupathi. 4 Unit Officer (Public Health Unit), Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupathi. .....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 of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents in not entrusting the sanitation work to the petitioner society as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to implement the recommendations of the Negotiations Committee headed by the Joint Executive Oﬃcer, Tirupathi dt. 10-07-2006 and entrust the Sanitation work to all the members of the Petitioner Society as certiﬁed by the Vigilance and Security Oﬃcer, T.T.D., Tirumala in his letters dated 24.02.2003 and 12.04.2003 immediately. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GOVIND REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.PALLENAGESWAR RAO The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 18588 of 2008 Order: The petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, claims to have 90 members, all of whom were erstwhile licensed porters in the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam and who belong to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and other weaker sections. They ﬁled W.P. No. 26025 of 2000 and this Court, by order dated 27.12.2000, directed the second respondent to consider their case for providing alternative employment, if they were qualiﬁed. Since no decision was taken, C.C. No.1618 of 2001 was ﬁled and this Court, by order dated 14.03.2002, directed that the matter be referred to the T.T.D. Lok Adalat for settlement. The petitioner made a representation and, consequently, the fourth respondent is said to have issued proceedings dated 11.09.2002, whereby the second respondent is said to have agreed to entrust maintenance of sanitation works to the members of the petitioner-society as a rehabilitation measure. The Vigilance and Security Oﬃcer is also said to have certiﬁed regarding the genuineness of the members of the petitioner- society and that they were the erstwhile licensed porters of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam. A committee was constituted to examine the matter and to ﬁnalize the rates. It is stated that the committee had approved seven proposals for entrustment of work to the petitioner-Society, that there was a consensus among all the members of the committee and, thereafter, the matter was placed before the ﬁrst respondent for approval. The petitioners’ grievance, in short, is that, while the matter is hanging for the past two years, the TTD Trust Board has not taken any decision on the recommendations of the committee till date. Heard Sri P. Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Nageshwar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam. Sri P. Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that since a ﬁnal decision is required to be taken by the ﬁrst respondent, bearing in mind the recommendations made by the committee, a mandamus be issued directing them to take a decision within a specified time frame. I ﬁnd considerable force in the said contention. Ends of justice would be met if the ﬁrst respondent is directed to take a decision with regards entrustment of sanitation works to the members of the petitioner-society, bearing in mind the recommendations made by the committee. It is made clear that this order now passed shall not be construed as binding the ﬁrst respondent to the recommendations made by the committee. The ﬁrst respondent shall take a decision in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 18.11.2008 Nsr