IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3457 of 2009 Between: 1 Deity Sri Gangadevi Murugulamma of Bandarulanka, Rep. by its Trustee Jaina Sathiraju, S/o. Venkataratnam, Hindu, 7 2 Years, R/o. Bandarulanka (V), Amalapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Jaina Sathiraju, S/o. Venkataratnam, Hindu, SRI Gangadevi Murugulamma of Bandarulanka, R/o. Bandarulanka (V), Amalapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 Akula Satyanarayana, S/o. Satyam, Hindu, Sri Gangadevi Murugulamma of Bandarulanka, R/o. Bandarulanka (V), Amalapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 2 Sub Divisional Police Officer, Amalpuram, East Godavari District. 3 Sub Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Taluka, Police Station, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. .....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 Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioners herein to perform poojas, Utsavams and ceremonial rituals to the 1st Petitioner deity by considering the representations dt. 29-12- 2008 and 10-2-2009 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential order directing the 2nd respondent to submit his report as directed by the 1st respondent and allow the 2nd and 3rd petitioners to perform poojas, Utsavams and ceremonial rituals to the 1st Petitioner deity. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioners questioning the action of the respondents in not considering their representations dated 29.12.2008 and 10.2.2009 for allowing them to perform Poojas, Utsavams and ceremonial rituals to the 1st respondent diety. The petitioners have also sought for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to submit his report as directed by the 1st respondent and allow them to perform the poojas as requested by them. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleaders for Revenue and Home and at their request the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. The case of the 2nd petitioner is that when some of the villagers are interfering with the management of the 1st petitioner temple, he approached this Court and filed W.P.No.23292 of 2008. The said writ petition was disposed of by this court on 31.10.2008 directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 14.4.2008 and 19.4.2008 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The grievance of the 2nd petitioner is that pursuant to the said directions of this court, he made a representation dated 2.2.2009 and pursuant to the said letter, on 10.2.2009 the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram directed the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Amalapuram to submit his report as to the action taken by him but so far no action has been taken by the respondents on the said representations. It is also stated that along with some other villagers, the 2nd petitioner has also made a representation on 29.12.2008 to the 1st respondent to consider the representations as directed by this Court in W.P.No.23292 of 2008, in vain. It is stated that, in the second week of March, 2009 Utsavams are going to take place and so far no action has been taken place and hence this writ petition. Even though time is granted to the learned Government Pleader for Home on 24.2.2009, no instructions are reported. In the circumstances, since the representations of the petitioners are pending before the 2nd respondent herein, without expressing any opinion as to the claim made by the 2nd petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent – Sub Divisional Police Officer, Amalapuram to consider the request of the 2nd petitioner as per the letter addressed by the 1st respondent and take necessary action as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.3.3.2009 NOTE: Furnish CC in 2 days (B/o) msv