IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.25027 of 2009 Between: D. Ramachandraiah ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principle Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others. ..... RESPONDENTS ORDER: The matter is coming up for admission. 2. The learned AGP for Endowments takes notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad takes notice on behalf of Respondent-3. 3. The writ petition is filed praying for the relief of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not passing any orders on the stay application filed in the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner under Section-121 of HRI & Endowments Act as wholly arbitrary, illegal and void and pass such other suitable orders. 4. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. It is stated that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person and the third respondent leased out the shop in question vide proceedings 24-11-1992 and several further facts also had been narrated. It is also stated that the third respondent filed O.A.No.3 of 2003 before the second respondent under Section 83 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and several further facts also had been narrated. 5. No doubt, it is stated that the second respondent without affording proper opportunity had disposed of the matter and the petitioner applied for the order copy and received the order copy on 28-05-2007 in person. It is also stated that the Commissioner without application of mind had passed the order. It is stated that as against the said order, a revision had been filed before the Government – first respondent and it is also stated that along with the revision petition, the petitioner also moved an application praying for stay of further proceedings and no interim order had been granted. 6. No doubt, Sri Ravi Prasad, Standing Counsel representing respondent No.3 would submit that the petitioner is prolonging the proceedings. The same is recorded. 7. In the light of the facts and circumstances, inasmuch as it is stated that the petitioner already had approached the first respondent by filing revision petition, let the first respondent dispose of the said revision petition within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order and till then status- quo obtaining as on today to be maintained. 8. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J November 18, 2009. Note: Wire at party’s cost. B/o.PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.25027 of 2009 November 18, 2009 Note: Wire at party’s cost. B/o.PN