THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.23824 of 2010 Between: M/s. Sri Durga Industries, Rep. By its Partner, K.Venkata Ramana. PETITIONER And 1. Sri Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, rep. By its Executive Officer, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner Sri W.B. Srinivas Counsel for the respondents 1: Sri V. Venugopala Rao Counsel for the respondent No.2: Sri S. Venkateswara Rao Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner, a small-scale industry, was awarded contract for gold malam works for Dwajasthambam and Prahlada Mandapam at Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, after inviting tenders. The petitioner is said to have submitted necessary security deposit of Rs.69,000/- in the form of EMD. In pursuance of the award, the petitioner was given work orders in Rc.No.E1/5950/2003 dated 27.11.2004 relating to the work at Prahlada Mandapam for an approved value of Rs.6,82,868/- and Rc.No.E1/4507/2003, dated 29.11.2004 for an approved value of Rs.9,07,968/- for Dwajasthambam. The petitioner is said to have commenced the work by procuring the required material, but it was asked to stop the work, and therefore, it could not proceed with the execution of work. In the meanwhile a tender notification was published on 17.07.2010 for cancellation of work order granted to the petitioner and a re-tender notification was published on 10.09.2010 by the Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, Tirupathi, inviting fresh tenders. At that stage the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the said tender notification dated 10.09.2010, as illegal. Several contentions have been advanced questioning the competency of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam to interfere in the affairs of the 1st respondent-temple and issuing tender notification. The substantive contention is that the 1st respondent-temple is nowhere under the control of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam and therefore the impugned tender notification is without jurisdiction. I am not inclined to consider the said question at this stage nor am I persuaded to consider, in view of the fact that even though the work order was issued in the year 2004, for no valid reason the work was not executed. The 1st respondent-temple is an ancient temple attracting devotees from far and wide. Dwajasthambam has its own prominence at the temples. One has to feel sorry that the Dwajasthambam of such ancient and popular temple has been left in such a state of affairs even without proper quoting. The temple authorities ought to have taken appropriate steps without wasting time ever since 2004. There does not appear any valid reason for the inaction. The learned counsel for the petitioner, having regard to the prominence of the temple, fairly submits that the petitioner is willing to execute the work even now at the same cost as per the work order issued to him. I do not find any reason to decline the said offer. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing respondent Nos.1 and 3 to permit the petitioner to execute the work as per the aforesaid work orders dated 27.11.2004 and 29.11.2004 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender notification within the time stipulated by the 1st respondent. However, the petitioner shall not demand any additional charges for executing the said works. The 1st respondent is not precluded from availing the services of the 2nd respondent during the execution of work, for guidance and supervision of the work. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 3rd November, 2011. Note: issue C.C. in one week. (B/o) Js.