IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 26009 OF 2009 Between: Sri Kalimatha Ammavari Devasthanam,Vijayawada, Krishna District, rep. by its Secretary, A.Ranganayakulu ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue (Endowments), Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 26009 OF 2009 ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. It is not in dispute that Sri Kalimatha Ammavari Devasthanam, Vijayawada was exempted from the operation of the provisions of Section 15 and 29 of the Endowments Act in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 154 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 initially for a period of 3 years vide G.O.Rt.No.1822, dated 24.09.2003. Subsequently, the exemption was extended vide G.O.Ms.No.1942 dated 29.12.2006 for a further period of 3 years from 24.09.2006. Even prior to the expiry of the said period of 3 years, the petitioner made a representation on 28.07.2009 requesting the Government to extend the exemption for a further period. While it is pending, by order dated 09.09.2009, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments was kept as in charge Executive Officer of the Temple in question. Thereafter the impugned order dated 20.11.2009 came to be passed directing the 3rd respondent to take complete charge of the post of Executive Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that while the petitioner’s request for extension of the exemption for a further period is pending, the respondents are not justified in appointing the 3rd respondent as Executive Officer. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and keeping in view the specific plea that the petitioner’s representation dated 28.07.2009 for extension has not yet been considered by the 1st respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.07.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time status quo obtaining as on today as to the management of the Temple in question shall be maintained. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 01.12.2009 Ivd