HON’BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10853 OF 2004 Between: Mr. Tirumala Seshu Kumar . . .Petitioner AND M/s.Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam and another . . .Respondents :: ORDER :: Counsel for the Petitioner : Shri B.Adinarayana Rao 3rd January, 2007 PER G.S.SINGHVI, CJ In this petition, the petitioner has made the following substantive prayer: “For the reasons stated above and those reasons which may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to grant an order, direction or writ, more so in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in formulating a master plan in its board meeting held on 27/28.12.2002 and executing the same and the inaction of the second respondent in restraining the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner enshrined in Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the first respondent to restore all the religious structures demolished by the first respondent, under the master plan, including the 1000 pillar mandapam at the same place and height at which they were existing and to stop all further constructions, including the fourth “Maha Prakaram” in pursuance of the master plan.” Shri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner says that in view of the developments, which have taken place during the pendency of the writ petition and including the resolution passed by Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Board whereby it has been agreed that Mandapam of permanent nature be constructed by using all available pillars of dismantled 1000 pillar ancient structure in the South East corner of the open area measuring 200’ X 100’, the writ petition may be disposed of as infructuous. In view of the statement made by Shri B.Adinarayana Rao, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to file an application for its revival, if any such contingency arises in future. As a sequel to disposal of the main petition, W.P.M.P.No.33427 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also disposed of as infructuous. G.S.SINGHVI, CJ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 03.01.2007 kvni