THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.20939 of 2009 (Dated : 25-09-2009) Between: Chitti Ram Babu S/o Appa Rao, Occ: Night Watchman Group Temples, Palakol, West Godavari District. ….Petitioner A n d The Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-I, Kakinada, East Godavari District and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.20939 of 2009 ORDER: As much as the revision filed by the petitioner is still pending consideration before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-I, Kakinada, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner is a night watchman working in Sri Kanakadurgamma Ammavari Temple at Palakol. Originally, he was appointed in Sri Panchamukha Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Palakol, West Godavari District. The 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada, East Godavari District issued orders, vide Proc. in Rc.No.B1/5763/2009, dated 25.5.2009 repatriating the petitioner to his parent temple, i.e., Sri Panchamukha Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Palakol, West Godavari District. Aggrieved by the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner filed Revision Petition No.38 of 2009 before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-1, Kakinada. Initially, the said revisional authority passed orders dated 16.9.2009 granting suspension of the order dated 25.5.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Endowments in Rc.No.B1/5763/ 2009 till disposal of the revision petition. It appears in the said revision petition, the third respondent herein has filed a vacate petition in I.A.No.5 of 2009. The said application is not only entertained for impleadment, but by order dated 18.9.2009, the earlier order dated 16.9.2009 passed by the Regional Authority in favour of the petitioner was vacated. Hence, this writ petition. 3. A perusal of the impugned order, there is no indication of giving any opportunity to the petitioner before passing the order. When the revision petition filed by the petitioner was entertained and orders were passed in I.A.No.4 of 2009 suspending the order dated 25.5.2009 passed in R.C.No.B1/5763/2009, the revisional authority ought to have notified to the petitioner before hearing the vacate petition and passing any order on the application filed by the third respondent. In that view of the matter, without going into the merits of the claims of the rival parties, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order dated 18.9.2009 passed in I.A.No.5 of 2009 in R.P.No.38 of 2009 by the learned Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-1, Kakinada, East Godavari District and remand the matter back to the said authority for fresh consideration of the matter and to pass appropriate orders. It is needless to observe that till such appropriate orders are passed, the order dated 16.9.2009 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2009 shall continue to operate. 4. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dt.25-09-2009 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.20939 of 2009 (Dated: 25-09-2009)