THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.Nos.26759 OF 2010 BETWEEN : M/s. Sri Radha Krishna Talkies, Lalapet, Guntur City, Rep. by its Managing Partner Dr. Syed Imam, S/o. late Sri Syed Latiff, Medical Practitioner, R/o. H.No.15/18/117A, Maruthi Nagar, 4th Line, Old Guntur, Guntur City. …... PETITIONER And 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Endowment Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and others. …....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P. Venugopal Counsel for the respondents: The Court made the following. ORDER: The petitioner, a firm which was a lessee until 31.07.2009, has filed this writ petition to declare the inaction of the 2nd respondent, viz., the Commissioner of Endowments, Government of A.P., in considering and passing orders on the application of the petitioner dated 3.05.2009 seeking renewal of lease of the land, as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders thereon. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted lease for an extent of 905 sq. yds., of land situated in S.No.146, Lalapet, Guntur District. The said land belongs to the 4th respondent-institution. It is stated that the predecessors in title, i.e., the grand-father of the Managing Director of the petitioner constructed a cinema theatre on the aforesaid land and donated the super structure to the 4th respondent-institution. The petitioner-firm has been running the cinema hall as a lessee. The said lease was being extended from time to time and the last renewal was till 31.07.2009. The petitioner states that it has made an application on 3.05.2009 to the 2nd respondent seeking extension of lease on enhancement of rent and as the 2nd respondent has not passed any orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief. Heard Sri P. Venugopal learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in possession as a lessee for a considerably long time ever since the period of his ancestors and having regard to the nature of business in which the petitioner is involved, extension of lease has been sought for, which had to be granted in the interest of the 4th respondent-institution. He would therefore submit that the 2nd respondent, who is competent, ought to have considered the application dated 3.05.2009 and pass appropriate orders, so as to enable the petitioner for further course of action. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, would submit that after expiry of lease on 31.07.2009, the petitioner has no right to continue on the premises and as the petitioner continued to occupy the premises invoking the provisions of Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) the 4th respondent has already filed O.A. before the Tribunal and the same is pending. The counsel would therefore submit that the petitioner can as well defend his case before the Tribunal. I am not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case as to whether the petitioner is entitled for any extension of lease, nor I am inclined to refer to the dispute said to be pending in the O.A. Suffice it to state all that the petitioner is seeking that his representation filed on 3.05.2009 should be considered one way or the other. Having regard to the limited grievance of the petitioner, without expressing any opinion of the entitlement of the petitioner for extension of lease, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the application filed by the petitioner on 3.05.2009 by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law, as early as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 28th December, 2010 Js.