IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:12092 of 2003 Between: Appayyanagar Residents Welfare Association, (Regd.No.14/92) Apayyanagar, Visakhapatnam-530 018. Rep. by its President Sri G.Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Nageswara Rao, R/o. Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Endowments, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Executive Officer, Endowments Department, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. S.B.DUBEY FOR MR.P.SRI RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare that the management of Sri Appayyanagar Residents Welfare Association/Sri Bhusametha Vijaya Venkateswara Swamy Temple vests in the petitioner association and to further declare that the appointment of respondent No.3 for the said temple is illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri S.B.Dubey, learned counsel representing Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner association and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and perused the record. On 25.06.2003, this Court while admitting the writ petition, directed that respondent No.3 shall act strictly in accordance with Sub-Section 5 of Section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) while dealing with the administration of the temple. The petitioner ﬁled C.C.No.1405 of 2003 in this Court complaining of disobedience of the said order. By closing the said Contempt Case, this Court observed that no speciﬁc allegations are made that lawful directions issued by the petitioner association are not implemented by the Executive Oﬃcer or that he failed to report the expenditure under Sections 27 and 29(5)(b)(i) of the Act. It is further observed that if any lawful directions are issued by the petitioner association, respondent No.3 is under an obligation to follow the same and the expenditure incurred by him due to exigencies has to be reported to the petitioner association. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner association is not in principle against the appointment of respondent No.3, it is only interested in seeing that respondent No.3 shall not exceed his powers, while discharging his functions as Executive Officer. In view of the directions already given by this Court in the afore-mentioned two orders, the interests of the petitioner association are protected and no further orders are need be passed in this regard. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.15037 of 2003 ﬁled by the petitioner association for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th NOVEMBER, 2008. kvni