IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 16672 of 2008 Between: V. Sitaramaswamy, S/o. late V. Lakshmi Narasimham, R/o. Koduru Village, Mudinepally Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Sri Lokeswara and Janardhana Swamy Vari Devastanam, Koduru Village, Mudinepally Mandal, Krishna District, Rep. By its Manager. 2 The Commissioner of Endowments, Boggulakunta, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad. .....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 a Writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent temple i.e., Sri Lokeswara and Janardhana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Koduru Village, Mudinepally Mandal, Krishna District, Rep. by its Manager, Contemplating to hold the public auction of the lease-hold rights of the lands admeasuring an extent of Acs. 5-15 cents in Sy.No. 335 on 02-08-2008, as bad, illegal, arbitrary and oppose to law. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: V.T.M.PRASAD,SC FOR ENDOWNMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 16672 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner herein earlier filed W.P.No.10576 of 2005 seeking a declaration that the action of the first respondent-temple in issuing eviction notice under Rule 5(1) of the Rules made in G.O.Ms.No.379 dated 24-05-2003 is arbitrary and illegal. After hearing both the parties, the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court, by order dated 21-07-2008. However this Court observed as under: “On the above mentioned facts, I am of the view that interest of justice would be met if respondent No.5 is permitted to harvest the standing crop in the presence of the petitioner and adjust the sale proceeds of the crop towards the arrears payable to the 5th respondent-Institution. After such adjustment, if any amounts are found payable to the petitioner, respondent No.5 shall pay the same to him. Conversely, if the value of the sale proceeds is not sufficient to satisfy the arrears, respondent No.5 is permitted to recover the same from the petitioner through due process of law.” This writ petition is filed alleging that in spite of the directions of this Court in the above writ petition, the first respondent proposed to conduct public auction for grant of leasehold rights and the auction is scheduled to be held on 02-08-2008. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent- temple. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, though I do not find any justifiable reason to declare the auction itself as arbitrary and illegal, in view of the observations made by this Court in the earlier writ petition, extracted above, it is made clear that till the standing crop is harvested in terms of the order of this Court in W.P.No.10576 of 2005, no further steps pursuant to fresh auction shall be taken. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 01-08-2008 Note: Issue operative portion by wire. B/o KLP