IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO : 1425 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 27/11/2007 in WP NO : 2506 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Mandela Venkateshwarlu S/o. Late M. Laxmaia R/o. .No. 6-2-63/5, New Boiguda, Secunderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Surti Krishna S/o. Late S. Laxmaiah R/o. H.No. 4-96/6, Dwarakamai Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, R.R. District. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Revenue (Endowments 11/1) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner of Endowments, Boggulkunta, Hyderabad. 4 The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Bogulakunta, Hyderabad. 5 The Executive Officer, Shri Ujjaini Mahankali Temple, Secunderabad. 6 Sri M.R.Balakrishna, S/o Ramulu, r/o 1-6-219, Condoli Bazar, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.GOPALA KRISHNA KALANIDHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.A. No.1425 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard both the counsel. The writ appellant is the party impleaded in the Writ Petition No.2506 of 2007 and aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27-11-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge, which was passed without hearing him, the present writ appeal is filed. It appears that the appellant filed an application seeking impleadment in the writ petition as a necessary party and the same had been ordered, which fact is not in dispute, and as on the date of hearing of the matter, the name of the learned counsel for the appellant was not printed in the cause list, which fact is also not in dispute. But, this aspect was not noticed by the learned Single Judge. However, the other counsel, Mr. Tulasi Reddy, and the learned Government Pleader, were also heard and the present impugned order was passed. Notwithstanding the merits in the case in favour of the writ petitioner, the principles of natural justice are required to be followed and consequently the appellant, who was impleaded as a party in the writ petition, ought to have been given an opportunity of audience, inasmuch as, he has that right by virtue of his impleadment as a party to the writ petition by the Court. Unfortunately, the omission of not printing the name of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, was not noticed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner or by the learned Government Pleader nor the same was brought to the notice of the Court. Consequently, after hearing the matter, the impugned order was passed. Since the principle of audi alteram partem had not been adequately met with, we feel it desirable to dispose of the writ appeal by remitting the matter to the learned Single Judge to give an opportunity of hearing to the appellant also, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Since the matter has been remitted to the learned Single Judge, orders of interim suspension, passed by the learned Single Judge, by order, dated 12-02-2007, shall continue until further orders to be passed by the learned Single Judge. With the above observations, the writ appeal is disposed of, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ----------------------------------- JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ----------------------------------- JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 02-12-2008 AVS/LSK