IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8376 of 2008 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 ..... PETITIONER 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. .....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 appropriate a writ or order or direction preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents no. 1 and 2 in interfering with the affairs of the petitioner's Society in so far administering the temple as illegal, void without any jurisdiction in the absence of any valid publication of the temple under Sec. 6(c) and in the absence of registration of the Temple under Section 43 of the Endowments Act and consquently direct the respondents No. 1 and 2 not to interfere with the affairs of the petitioner's Society without any source of powers and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.GURU GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 8376 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: The entire premise, on the basis of which this writ petition is filed, is that the petitioner – temple was neither notified nor published under Section 6(C) of the Andhra Pradesh 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. A copy of the gazette notification dated 19.5.2005 is placed before this court wherein the proceedings of the Commissioner of Endowments dated 16.3.2005 is enclosed and, therein, the petitioner – temple was brought under Section 6(C)(ii) of the Act. Sri N.Guru Gopal, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend 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 petitioner – temple is Rs.1,30,000/- per annum, the action of the respondents in notifying and publishing the same in the gazette is illegal. This question 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. It is evident that it is not. Leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the notification, I see no reason to go into the merits of the case in this writ petition, since the entire premise on which the writ petition is based is found to be non-existent. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________ 02-03-2009 asp