IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 28062 of 2008 Between: Ketagani Srinivas S/o. Pitchayya R/o. H.No.5-134, Vegeswarapurm, Tallapudi (M), West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, rep. by Executive Officer, Annavaram, East Godavari District. 2 The Commissiner, Endowments Department, Opp: Saraswathi Auditorium, Boggulakunta, 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in publishing the paper notification in respect of cool drinks and fancy shop without furnishing the order copy from the Hon'ble High Court is highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to set aside the public auction in respect of cool drinks and fancy shop situated in Annavaram Devasthanam, near Sub-Canteen, public scheduled to be held on 26.12.2008. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.P.RAJU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 28062 of 2008 O R D E R: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the impugned auction notice has been issued pursuant to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1587 of 2008, dated 03-12-2008, upholding the action of the first respondent-temple in proposing to conduct public auction to grant licences to various establishments and shops. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner against the said judgment of the Division Bench is yet to be heard by the Supreme Court and meanwhile, the respondents ought not to have proceeded with the public auction. The remedy available to the petitioner to seek stay of the auction on such ground may be elsewhere but there cannot be any Mandamus restraining the respondents from taking steps in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 24-12-2008 KLP