IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20894 of 2009 Between: P. Narender Reddy … Petitioner And: The Government of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary to Govt., Endowment Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & others. …Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M. Sudheer Kumar Counsel for respondents 1-3: GP for Endowments Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri Ch. Satish Kumar SC for Endowments Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri B. Kamalakara Rao Counsel for respondents 6-10: Sri Srinivas Murthy Cheedella This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 20894 of 2009 ORDER:- (Per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This writ petition is filed in the name of public interest litigation by the petitioner, who claims to be a devotee of respondent No.4 temple, questioning the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in permitting respondent Nos.6 to 10 to cultivate the land in question despite expiry of its lease period. In the counter affidavits filed by the official and private respondents, the locus of the petitioner is seriously disputed. However, having regard to the stand taken by respondent No.4 in his counter affidavit, it is not necessary for us to deal with the locus of the petitioner. In paragraph 12 of the said counter affidavit, the allegation of the petitioner that respondent No.4 permitted respondent Nos.6 to 10 to cultivate the land has been specifically denied. It is averred that respondent No.4 warned respondent Nos.6 to 10 against cultivating the land vide notice dated 07.10.2009 issued by him and that respondent Nos.6 to 10 were not allowed to cultivate the land except during the period covered by the order passed by this Court earlier. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the official respondents have not conducted fresh auction for the future period. Sri Ch. Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4, submitted that through letter dated 22.10.2009, respondent No.2 directed respondent No.3 to take necessary action for auctioning the leasehold rights of the land in question. In view of this submission, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to initiate immediate steps for holding auction and he shall complete the process of auction within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.27198 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 23.12.2009 ES