IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 14071 of 1998 Between: Singhakoli Narsimha Rao, s/o late Ramalinga Swamy, R/o Santanutalapadu, santanutalapadu Mandal, Prakasam Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of AP, Rep by its Secretary,Revenue (Endt.IV) Dept., Secretariat Bldgs, Hyd. 2 The Commissioner, Endts Dept., Hyderabad, AP. 3 The Asst.Commissioner of Endts, Prakasam Dist. 4 The Executive Officer, Group of Temples, Chimakurthy, Prakasam Dist. .....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 to issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to call for the records in Memo No.71471/Endts.IV(1)/97-11 on the file of the 1st respondent and allow the petitioner to continue as Executive Authority of sri Tripuranathaka Swamy vari Temples, Santhanuthalapadu, Prakasam Dist., by seting aside the order of appointment of fourth respondent as executive officer of the said temple, declaring the order of appointment as null and void and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JPK} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.14071 of 1998 O R D E R: This writ petition was listed on 08-08-2008. Since there is no representation, it was directed to be listed today. The situation continues as it is, even today. 2. The relief prayed for in the writ petition, inter alia, is that the petitioner be continued as Executive Authority of the temple, called as Sri Tripuranthaka Swamy Vari Temple, Santhanuthalapadu, Prakasam District. 3. Initially, this Court granted status quo on 15-05-1998. But later, an order was passed on 01-09-1998 modifying the status quo order taking note of the fact that the Executive Officer is in-charge. Thereafter, further orders were also passed on 16-08-2000 in W.P.M.P.No.28780 of 1999, rejecting petitioner’s prayer for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to act as Executive Authority, specifically, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is out of office of the temple since 1992. Eight more years have gone by thereafter and though the matter is listed on two occasions, there is no representation for the petitioner. Apparently, it shows that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. 4. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. No costs. ________________ 14-08-2008 kvr