IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL Nos : 545 & 546 of 2009 WRIT APPEAL NO : 545 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 7/04/2009 in W.P.M.P. No. 9113 of 2009 in WP NO : 21728 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Sri Arani Kandappa Maistry Choultry, Nellore Town and District ,rep.by its Executive officer ..... APPELLANT AND 1 K.Narender Reddy S/o.Raghuram Reddy Nellore R/o.27-11054, Vasavinagar , Nellore 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department Guntur .....RESPONDENTS and Writ Appeal No. 546 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 7/04/2009 in W.P.M.P. No. 9114 of 2009 in WP NO : 21728 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.V.T.M.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr. V. Hariharan Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (in both the appeals) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL Nos.:545 & 546 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Smt. T. Meena Kumari,J) Since the issue involved in these two writ appeals being the same, they are disposed of by this common order. These writ appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 7.4.2009 made in W.P.M.P. Nos. 9113 and 9114 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. 21728 of 2008. The 1st respondent herein filed the aforesaid writ petition before the learned single Judge questioning the order dated 21.6.2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments in O.A. No. 113 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the Deputy Commissioner directed the 1st respondent to remove the encroachments and deliver possession of the vacant site. On 30.9.2008, this Court while issuing Rule Nisi, stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 21.6.2008 of the Deputy Commissioner on condition of the 1st respondent depositing rent at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month commencing from September, 2008. It was further directed that the rent of September, 2008 shall be paid to the appellant-Trust on or before 10th of October, 2008 and he shall continue to pay the rent for the subsequent months on or before 5th of every succeeding month. However, subsequently, it appears, the premises of the 1st respondent were sealed by the authorities on the ground that 1st respondent committed default in payment of rents. At that stage, the 1st respondent filed W.P.M.P. No. 9113 of 2009 before the learned single Judge seeking a direction to the authorities to remove the seal; whereas W.P.M.P. No. 9114 of 2009 was filed by him seeking a direction not to create any encumbrance in respect of the schedule property. The learned single judge, through the impugned order, while granting the interim reliefs as sought for, directed the 1st respondent to continue to pay the rent as per the earlier interim order dated 30.9.2008. Aggrieved, the appellant-Trust filed these writ appeals. Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that even though a submission was made before the learned single Judge that the Executive Officer of the appellant-Trust has colluded with the 1st respondent due to which the rent which was due and payable on 10th October, 2008 has been clandestinely accepted by the Executive Officer on 4.11.2008, the learned single judge has erroneously granted the interim orders. He, therefore, prayed that the writ appeals be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent has submitted that pursuant to the interim order granted by the learned single Judge on 30.9.2008, the 1st respondent has taken out the demand draft for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 10.10.2008 (a copy of which is filed at page No.39 of the material papers) and handed over the same to the authorities on the same day itself. However, the authorities with a mala fide intention have encashed the same in the month of November, 2008. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. Admittedly, the impugned order is only an interim order and the learned single Judge did not pass any final orders in the writ petition touching upon the merits of the matter. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the writ appeals. The writ appeals fail and they are accordingly dismissed. However, the registry is directed to post the main writ petition itself for hearing before the learned single Judge on 13.7.2009. The writ appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 21st April, 2009 ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J pnb