IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21345 of 2002 Between : T. Rajasekhar S/o. T.G. Rama Rao, r/o., 29-5-4/2, Jayashree Talkies Road, Rajahmundry. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry, Rep. by its Commissioner, Rajahmundry. 2 District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 3 The Executive Officer, Uma Markandeyeswara Swamy Temple, River Bund, Rajahmundry. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in resorting to demolishing of Uma Markandeyeswara Swamy temple, Gunduvariveedhi, River bund, Rajahmundry and removal of idols is violative of building rules and Treasure trove act and rules and unconstitutional, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish, alter the structure of the above said temple and removal of idols of the temple after declaring any such activity has to be in conformity with Corporation Building rules and treasure trove rules. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents : MS.M.VIDYAVATHI The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in resorting to demolish Uma Markandeyeswara Swamy temple, situated at Gunduvariveedhi, Riverbund, Rajahmundry, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that at the instance of 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent is demolishing the temple in question and removing the idols, contrary to the provisions of the Endowments Act and the provisions of the Treasure Trove Act and the Rules made thereunder. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent/ Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry, it is categorically stated that he has never initiated any action either for demolition of the temple or for construction of any shopping complex in the road margin. It is also stated that he has not accorded any permission for re-construction or renovation of the temple, and that no application is also made by respondent No.3 either for renovation of temple or for construction of a shopping complex. 4. In view of the above statements made by respondent No.1/Commissioner in his counter affidavit, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the claim of the petitioner to decide on the aspect that respondents are taking steps for demolition of the temple in question. 5. Placing on record the statements made by respondent No.1 that no steps are being taken for demolition of the temple, this writ petition is closed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 11th June 2009 ajr