IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 4504 of 2009 Between: Kota Ramachandra Rao ..... PETITIONER AND Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments Department, Multi Zone-II, Tirupati, Chittoor District and 3 others. .....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 Mandamus declaring the action of 1st respondent in not granting stay in R.P. No. 2 of 2009 against the order No. 61 dated 27.12.2008 in O.A. 24 of 2005 on the file of 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable and further prays to grant stay of all further proceedings against the Order No. 61 dated 27.12.2 Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.JAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 4504 of 2009 O R D E R: It appears, petitioner is the tenant of Shop bearing No.23- 9-9, situated at R. Agraharam, Guntur, belonging to 4th respondent- Choultry. While that being so, O.A. 24 of 2005 was filed by 3rd respondent before 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, by proceedings dated 27.12.2008 ordered eviction of the petitioner, as prayed for. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed R.P. No. 2 of 2009 before 1st respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that though the R.P. was entertained, no orders were passed on the interim application seeking stay of the orders passed by 2nd respondent, except issuing notice on 28.2.2009. According to the petitioner, if stay is not granted by 1st respondent, the whole R.P. will become infructuous. Further, not passing any orders on the stay application filed by the petitioner itself is arbitrary and illegal. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to notice that the very petition filed in O.A. 24 of 2005 is seeking eviction of the petitioner as tenant of the temple property. During the pendency of the O.A., he was in possession and enjoyment of the said mulgi and, according to the petitioner, even as on today he is in possession of the property. Under those circumstances, it is desirable that the petitioner be continued in the said premises during the pendency of the R.P. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1st respondent to dispose of R.P. No. 2 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Till such time, the orders passed in O.A. 24 of 2005 dated 27.12.2008 shall not be given effect to. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 04-03-2009. Note: C.C. in a week. (BO) MVB.