THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.5158 OF 2011 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent – the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada, East Godavari District, in Rc.No.B4/12265/2009 dated 21.2.2011, in directing the petitioner to implement the orders of the 2nd respondent – Commissioner, in proceedings in Rc.No.E3/38452/2002-2, dated 21.10.2009, and thereby get himself relieved from the post of Manager of Sri Bachu Ramesam Choultry, Ramesampeta, East Godavari District and join duty as Junior Assistant in his parent institution, the present writ petition is filed. 3. As per the averments made in the writ affidavit, the petitioner was appointed as temple clerk in Sri Dinavahi Vari Choultry and Group, Vijayawada on 13.2.1986. While he was working at Sri Kunthi Madhava Swamy Group Temples, the 2nd respondent – Commissioner vide proceedings dated 31.8.2001, in exercise of powers under Section 29(5)(d) of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, authorized him to work as Executive Officer/Manager for Sri Samasthanam Choultry Pithapuram and accordingly he joined duty on 5.9.2001 and while working there, he was transferred to Sri Batchu Ramesam Choulatry, Ramesampet on 31.5.2007 and since then, he has been working in the said choultry. While so, by proceedings dated 21.10.2009, the 2nd respondent – Commissioner has withdrawn the authorization given to him and aggrieved by the same, earlier he filed writ petition before this court in W.P.No.23248/2009 and while disposing of the writ petition by order dated 15.7.2010, this court upheld the order of the 2nd respondent – Commissioner and directed that the respondent shall not take any steps adverse to the interest of the petitioner, without giving opportunity to him in accordance with law. 4. Now the grievance of the petitioner, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that since the date of disposal of the writ petition on 15.7.2010, the Commissioner has not passed any orders, and however in the proceedings issued by the Commissioner dated 21.10.2009, proceedings dated 3.9.2007 is referred, which has not been supplied to the petitioner and in the proceedings dated 21.10.2009 only a bald statement is made that in the public interest and for better administration, the Commissioner is withdrawing the authorization. He further stated that in the counter filed to the earlier writ petition, the respondents have admitted that there are allegations against the petitioner. When that is the case, in all fairness, the respondents shall conduct an enquiry into the allegations by giving opportunity, but they cannot withdraw the authorization and it amounts to casting a stigma on his services and also amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. He further contended that the respondent no.3 – Deputy Commissioner under the Act, has no authority, to pass the impugned order. With these submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to set aside the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments contended that the proceedings of the Commissioner dated 21.10.2009 withdrawing the authorization of the petitioner to work as Manager/Executive Officer of Bachu Ramesam Choultry, Ramesampeta East Godavari District, has been upheld by this court in W.P.No.23248/2009 by order dated 15.7.2010 and this court directed that the respondents shall not take any steps adverse to the interest of the petitioner without giving opportunity to him. In the present case, the authorization was withdrawn in the interest of institution and no allegations are leveled against the petitioner and hence he cannot be said to be prejudiced by the said proceedings. As the proceedings of the Commissioner dated 21.10.2009 have been upheld by this court, the 3rd respondent – Deputy Commissioner by the impugned proceedings required the petitioner to get himself relieved from the post of Manager. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same may be dismissed. 6. From the material available on record, it could be seen that the proceedings dated 21.10.2009 withdrawing the authorization given to the petitioner to work as Manager of Sri Batchu Ramsam Chountry, Ramesampet, East Godavari District, has been upheld by this court in W.P.No.23248/2009 by order dated 15.7.2010 and further this court has made it clear that the respondents cannot take into account the allegations leveled against the petitioner, without conducting enquiry and without giving opportunity to him. The said order of this court has become final, as there is no material on record to show that any appeal is filed. Hence, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, re-agitating the proceedings dated 21.10.2009 issued by the Commissioner, cannot be appreciated. 7. Further in the proceedings dated 21.10.2009 the Commissioner has specifically instructed the 3rd respondent – Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner to see that the said orders are implemented and report compliance. Therefore, in pursuance of the said proceedings dated 21.10.2009 and the order of this court dated 15.7.2010 in W.P.No.23248/2009, upholding the said proceedings, the Deputy Commissioner required the petitioner by the impugned proceedings dated 21.2.2011, to handover the charge of institution and get himself relieved and report in his parent institution. In other words, it cannot be said that the impugned proceeding of the Deputy Commissioner dated 21.2.2011, is an independent order and it is only an offspring of the earlier order dated 21.10.2009, passed by the Commissioner. 8. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. AVS ---------------------------------- 21—03—2011