IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 25149 of 2006 Between: Konduru Venkata Rao S/o. Kotaiah Nandigama Gram Panchayat, Nandigama, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Endowments Department, 2 The Commissioner of Endowments, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 3 Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Vari Devastanam, Rep. by its Manager, Nandigama Village and Mandal, .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of te respondents in seeking to conduct public auction on 4-12-2006 by auction notice dt. 15-11-2006 published in local Edition Krishna District of Andhra Jyothi Telugu Daily, of the prime land of in an extent of Ac 25.00 of the 3rd Respondent temple situated at Nandigama, Krishna District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of section 80 of A.P. Charitable & indu Religions Institutions & Endowments Act 1987 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 25149 of 2006 Order: Heard Sri P. Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, and with their consent, the writ petition itself is disposed of. While several contentions were raised by Sri P. Prabhakara Rao, including that prior sanction of the Commissioner, as required under Section 80 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’), had not been obtained and that failure to stipulate in the notification, the boundaries of the land which was subjected to auction was contrary to the rules, it is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine these contentions, as Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, would, on instructions, submit that the notification does, indeed, suffer from such a defect. Learned counsel would submit that failure to mention in the notification details regarding the boundaries of the land, which was sought to be auctioned, does fall foul of the rules prescribed in this regard. He would request this Court to permit the respondents to issue a notification afresh inviting bids for the temple land in question. In view of the submission now made, the auction notification impugned in this writ petition is set aside, leaving it open to the respondents to initiate proceedings afresh in accordance with law. Needless to state that all other questions, including the alleged violation of the conditions prescribed in Section 80 of Act 30 of 1987, are left open. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 13.03.2009 Nsr