IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12600 of 2008 Between: G. Rajendranath Goud, S/o. late Sri Jagannath Goud, Sri Venkateshwara Swamy Temple, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, R/o. H.No. 1-8-497/3, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Endowments, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 2 B. Suresh, S/o. Venkanna, Presently working as Executive Officer, Muurkapu Sangam, Kachiguda X Roads, Hyderabad. .....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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo In Rc.No. 11/17892/2008 dated 13-05-2008 issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to release the cell phone bills on par with similarly situated persons. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.GOVIND Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.2:-- The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.12600 of 2008 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader of Endowments appearing for the first respondent. Since the first respondent has not yet passed any order and what is challenged in this writ petition is only a show-cause notice, under which, the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation against the proposed action, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as premature. No costs. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that certain important documents are required to enable the petitioner to submit his explanation. In the circumstances, it is left open to the petitioner to make an appropriate application before the first respondent for furnishing the documents required by him and also for extension of time for submitting the explanation. If any such application is made, the first respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law. _______________ 18.06.2008 VGB