THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.26478 of 2011 Date: 21.09.2011 Between: K. Vijayakumar … Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.26478 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri P. Jagadish Chandra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri K.R. Prabhakar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Mutt. Having regard to the short relief sought for by the learned counsel for petitioner at the hearing for disposal of the revision petition within a time frame, with the consent of both the counsel, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. As per the pleadings, the 3rd respondent-Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupati, filed O.A.No.2 of 2003 before the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kurnool, seeking eviction of the petitioner and others from the scheduled premises. The said O.A. was allowed by order dated 23.10.2006 declaring the petitioner and others as an encroachers with a direction to remove the encroachment. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner preferred a revision petition in R.P.No.15 of 2006 before the Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. By order dated 18.8.2007 the said revision petition was dismissed confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent in O.A.No.2 of 2003, dated 23.10.2006. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner preferred a further revision before the 1st respondent-Government along with an application seeking stay on 13.9.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though considerable time has elapsed, the 1st respondent has neither considered the said revision petition nor passed any orders on the stay application. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though considerable time has elapsed eversince the date of filing the revision petition on 13.9.2011, the 1st respondent is not justified in keeping the matter pending for such a long time. The learned counsel, therefore, seeks that a direction be issued to the 1st respondent to dispose of the revision petition within a time frame in order to avoid hardship to the petitioner. 4. Indisputably, aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in R.P.No.15 of 2006, dated 18.8.2007, dismissing the revision petition and confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent in O.A.No.2 of 2003, dated 23.10.2006, the petitioner preferred a further revision before the 1st respondent-Government on 13.9.2011 along with a stay petition. Even though considerable time has elapsed, the 1st respondent has not considered the said revision petition. There does not appear to be any valid reason to keep the revision petition pending. In matters of this nature, the Statutory authorities are expected to pass appropriate orders expeditiously within a time frame so as to avoid hardship to the parties. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in view of the limited relief sought for during the course of hearing, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order passed b y the Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in R.P.No.15 of 2006, dated 18.8.2007 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say that the 1st respondent shall consider and dispose of the revision petition only after putting the 3rd respondent-Mutt on notice. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 21.09.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.26478 of 2011 21.09.2011 (Msr)