IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 25905 of 2002 BETWEEN: Pujari Papamma, W/o Narasaiah, Pujari of Paleti Gangamma Temple, Kogira, Roddam Mandal, Ananthapur. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Dy. Inspector General of Police, Ananthapur District, Anantapur. 2 The Superintendent of Police, Ananthapur District, Ananthapur. 3 The Inspector of Police, Penukonda Circle, Penukonda, Ananthapur District. 4 Mr. Ramana, Inspector of Police, Penukonda Circle, Penukonda, Ananthapur District. 5 The Sarpanch, Kogira Village, Roddam Mandal, Ananthapur 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 or Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus holding the action of the 3rd and 4th respondent in seizing and sealing the articles of deity Paleti Gangamma, Kogira Village, Roddam Mandal, Ananthapur District, handing over the key to 5th respondent, trying to hold a ballot to decide as to who should perform pooja and hold the custody of articles of the deity as illegal and unconstitutional consequently directing 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents not to interfere in the matter of performance of pooja and holding the custody of the articles consequently directing to return the key of the Almirah to the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.HANUMANTHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents 3 an 4 in seizing and sealing the articles of deity Paleti Gangamma, Kogira Village, Roddam Mandal, Ananthapur District, handing over the key to 5th respondent, trying to hold a ballot to decide as to who should perform pooja and hold the custody of articles of the deity as illegal and unconstitutional, and consequently direct the respondents 3, 4 and 5 not to interfere in the matter of performance of pooja and holding the custody of the articles. 2. This Court while admitting the writ petition directed the respondents not to interfere with the performance of pooja of deity Paleti Gangamma. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4 all the averments made in the writ petition have been denied. In view of the categorical denial of all the allegations of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no further orders are required to be passed in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 16, 2008 DSK