IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 424 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 02/03/2009 in WP NO : 8376 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Sri Venkateswara Swamy & Anjaneya Swamy, Ammavari Society, Regd. No. 6543/97, Plot No. 5-22-363, Opp : Electricity Sub Station, IDA, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad, Rep by its President Sri V.Venkat Rao, S/o. Late Sri V. Seetha Ramaiah ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Inspector, Endowments Department, East Division, O/o. the Asst. Commissioner, Ranga Reddy District, Yadgir Bhavan, Barkatpura X Roads, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ranga Reddy District, Yadgir Bhavan, Barkatpura Chowrasta, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Boggulakunta, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 4 The A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, O/o. Zonal Manager, Jeedimetla, I.E. Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, Rep by its Zonal Manager. 5 Pyata Narasimhulu, S/o. Bala Kistaiah, R/o. H.No. 436, Suraram Colony, Kutbullapur Madal, Ranga Reddy Distrtict, Hyderabad. 6 P. Vekateswara Raju, S/o. Ramachadra Raju, R/o. 49, APHC, DP Coloy, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRI N.GURU GOPAL Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 424 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt JusticeT. Meena Kumari ) The present writ appeal is filed against the order, dated 2.3.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.8376 of 2008. The appellant-temple is the writ petitioner. It had filed the above writ petition seeking to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in interfering with the affairs of the appellant-temple insofar as administration of the temple is concerned, as illegal and void and consequently, to direct respondents-1 and 2 not to interfere with the affairs of the appellant-temple, on the ground that the appellant-temple was neither notified nor published under Section 6(c) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, (A.P.Act 30 of 1987), nor was it registered under Section 43 of the said Act, and unless and until the temple is notified under section 6 (c), the question of operation of Endowments Act does not arise. It is also pertinent to note that a copy of the gazette notification, dated 19.5.2005 has been placed before this Court wherein the proceedings of the Commissioner of Endowments dated 16.3.2005 is enclosed and therein, the appellant-temple was brought under Section 6 (c ) (ii) of the Act. The learned single Judge having observed that the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is only if the annual income of the temple is more than Rs.2.00 lakhs could it have been notified and published as a 6(c) temple and since the annual income of the appellant-temple is Rs.1,30,000/- per annum, the action of the respondents in notifying and publishing the same in the gazette is illegal, is a question that may have necessitated examination if only the validity of the notification was put in issue or was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition and it is evident that it is not, dismissed the writ petition leaving it open to the appellant-temple to challenge the notification. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the appellant-temple while submitting that the appellant-temple is intending to question the said notification, seeks liberty to file a fresh writ petition questioning the notification. The order of the learned Single Judge makes it clear that it is always open to the appellant-temple to challenge the notification. However, in view of the observation made by the learned single Judge and in view of the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, it is made clear that liberty is granted to the appellant-temple to challenge the notification dated 19.5.2005, within a period of six weeks from today. Till such time, the parties are directed to maintain statusquo. Subject to the above observation, the writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _______________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar Gurc/nn Dated: 3/6/2009 THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 424 of 2009 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Smt JusticeT. Meena Kumari ) 3.6.2009