HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.27095 OF 2007 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings in Roc. No.TS3/15765/2007 dated 28-11-2007 issued by respondent No.1, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (TTD), whereunder in pursuance of an earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. No.22839 of 2007 in W.P. No.17818 of 2007 dated 11-09-2007, request of the petitioner was considered and it was intimated that his case was examined and it would be considered basing on the outcome of the appeal filed by him and his mother in this Court against judgment and decree made in O.S. No.220 of 1994 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati and also W.P. No.17818 of 2007. 2. After admitting this writ petition, the following order was passed by this Court on 23-09-2008 vide W.P.M.P. No.35417 of 2007: In spite of granting several adjournments, no counter is filed. It appears the question of adoption of the petitioner by his family members is relating to properties from his natural parents and the same is the subject matter in A.S. No.942 of 2001, which is pending before this Court. Prima facie, I am of the opinion that the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner on an erroneous understanding that unless and until the adoption i.e. the dispute between the petitioner and his other family members is decided in the first appeal, his case for appointment for Archakatvam service in TTD cannot be considered, since that could not have been a ground for rejecting his case having recognized the adoption earlier. Therefore, there shall be interim suspension as prayed for.” 3. Now, vacate stay petition in W.V.M.P. No.3246 of 2010 is filed by respondent No.2 to vacate the above order dated 23-09-2008. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - vacate stay petitioner states that as suspension of the impugned order dated 28-11-2007 was granted as noticed above, TTD has appointed the petitioner as Archaka on sambavana basis and he is being continued as on today. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is being continued till date on the basis of sambavana, therefore there is no necessity of vacating the interim order during the pendency of the writ petition. 6. Heard both sides and perused the material made available on record. 7. It appears, petitioner was impleaded as defendant No.10 in the suit in O.S. No.220 of 1994 filed for partition etc., whereunder respondent No.2 was also defendant No.2 and adoption of defendant No.10 was not decided or any issue was framed in that regard, however it was observed as under: “This adoption itself is denied. But first defendant failed to adduce any evidence to prove the said adoption. The alleged proceedings mentioned above re also not produced. D-1 has not stepped into the box to say that either she is the absolute owner of the property or that she took D-10 in Adoption. In the absence of any proof regarding adoption especially when it was denied, it cannot be held that the adoption is valid. Even assuming that the adoption is valid for the sake of argument, the learned advocate for the plaintiff argued that the right which was already vested in the plaintiff and D-1 to D-7 can not be divested by virtue of an adoption as per section 12 of Hindu adoption and maintenance Act.” Except the above, no finding is recorded as to the adoption. Being aggrieved of the judgment and decree made in O.S. No.220 of 1994 dated 01-12-1999 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, petitioner and his adopted mother filed appeal before this Court and the same is pending. Thus, the issue as to adoption has not attained finality. 8. Be that as it may, it appears, respondent No.2 was not given any notice before considering the case of the petitioner for appointing him as Archaka in the temple of TTD on sambavana basis though there is a dispute as to the very adoption and the right of the petitioner to be appointed as Archaka in the temple of TTD. 9. Under the above circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the TTD to conduct a fresh enquiry in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 11-09-2007 in W.P.M.P. No.22839 of 2007 in W.P. No.17818 of 2007 and pass appropriate orders as per law after hearing both the parties and their claims. However, it is made clear that the impugned proceedings in Roc. No.TS3/15765/2007 dated 28-11-2007 stands set aside. Further, respondent No.1 is directed to continue the petitioner as an Archaka o n sambavana basis till a decision is taken by it in this regard. 10. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ C.V. RAMULU, J August 11, 2010. NOTE: Dispatch the order within three (3) days. (B/O) PV