THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.26187 of 2007 DATED 22.01.2008 Between: V.Dasanna alias D.Dasanna. ….. PETITIONER Versus Sri Bramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam, Srisailam, Kurnool District, represented by its Executive Officer and another. …..RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.26187 of 2007 ORDER: This Court ordered Notice before admission on 7.12.2007. It is stated that the 2nd respondent had been served. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for 1st respondent-Temple. 2. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not allowing the petitioner to construct the shop in the site allotted to him, in spite of receiving six months rent and the action of the 1st respondent in not taking any action against the 2nd respondent in restricting him to construct a shop within his allotted place of 10’x10’ as illegal, void and also hit by Article 21 of the Constitution of India besides violative of promissory estoppel and consequently direct the 1st respondent to take appropriate action against the illegal construction of the 2nd respondent’s shop and also direct the 1st respondent to take steps for allowing the petitioner to do his business in the plot allotted to him and pass such other suitable orders. 3. It is stated that the 1st respondent-temple had conducted public auction of leasehold rights for various vacant sites for constructing temporary shops. The Commissioner of Endowments, who is the competent authority, had approved the leasehold rights of the highest bidders vide his proceedings in D.Dis No.A3/23412/2001, dated 6.7.2001. The Commissioner had approved as many as 42 bids in the same proceedings and the petitioner’s name is at serial No.4 whereas the name of respondent No.2 is at serial No.3. It is also stated that on 16.10.2005 the 1st respondent had recommended the case of the petitioner and other similarly placed persons for allotment of alternative sites vide proceedings in Rc.No.C2/6237/2000. It is further stated that on the recommendation of the 1st respondent, the Commissioner of Endowments had issued proceedings D.Dis.No.M1/43507/2005, dated 8.12.2005 granting lease in favour of the petitioner and 2nd respondent for a period of three years. It is also stated that keeping the orders of the Commissioner of Endowments, which were issued way back in 2005, in abeyance the 1st respondent ultimately issued the proceedings in Rc.No.C2/6237/00, dated 13.7.2007 permitting the petitioner and the 2nd respondent to pay the three months lease. Further it is stated that the petitioner made a representation on 25.11.2007 to the 1st respondent complaining about the action of the 2nd respondent in throwing the petitioner out from the plot and requested the 1st respondent to direct the 2nd respondent not to construct the shop in his plot. 4. It is needless to say that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are bound to proceed with the construction within the specified areas allotted to them by the 1st respondent. It is also needless to say that it is the bounden duty of the 1st respondent to look into the grievances ventilated by the petitioner in the representation dated 25.11.2007. 5. In the light of the facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.11.2007 and take appropriate action within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------ 22.01.2008 SSR