HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos. 4413, 4414, 4734, 4735, 4596, 4624 and 4627 of 2010 W.P.No.4413 of 2010 DATE: 2-3-2010 Between: Vooda Ramu … Petitioner And 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. By its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad And 4 others … Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos. 4413, 4414, 4734, 4735, 4596, 4624 and 4627 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The relief sought for in these writ petitions is to declare the action of the first respondent in not disposing of the revisions filed by the petitioners as arbitrary and illegal. Heard Sri K.A. Narasimham, Learned counsel for the petitioners, Learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri V.T.M. Prasad, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent-Devasthanam. At their request these writ petitions are being disposed of at the stage of admission. Counter affidavits are filed on behalf of the fifth respondent-Devasthanam. All counsel would agree that the facts in W.P. No. 4413 of 2010 are illustrative of the facts in all these writ petitions. The third respondent in W.P.No.4413 of 2010 issued a notice, under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987), asking the petitioner to vacate the shop. The petitioner submitted his explanation thereto. The fifth respondent, however, filed O.A.No. 8 of 2004 before the third respondent which was allowed and eviction orders were passed on 04.11.2006. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed revision petition No. 37 of 2007 before the second respondent. The revision petition was dismissed holding that the order of eviction passed by the third respondent was in accordance with law. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred a revision under Section 93 of Act 30 of 1987, along with a stay petition, to the first respondent. The revision petition was received and the first respondent, by memo dated 17.12.2007, called for para-wise remarks from the second respondent. It is represented that the 1st respondent has not passed any orders on the stay petition till date, though more than two years have elapsed. It is the petitioner’s case that he is in possession of the shop as a tenant for the last 35 years; a three years lease deed was executed in his favour from 01.10.2000 to 30.09.2003; he incurred huge expenditure towards major and minor repair works in the shop; and the third respondent collected enhanced rents for the shop from time to time. Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent-Devasthanam, would submit that, in as much as the petitioners continued to remain in illegal occupation of the shops belonging to the fifth respondent though their lease expired as early as in the year 2003, the fifth respondent had initiated steps for their eviction invoking the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments; it is only after orders of eviction were passed and was confirmed in appeal that, on 10.02.2010, the fifth respondent under the cover of a delivery possession certificate, and in the presence of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, the Village Revenue Officer, etc had taken possession of the shops; the delivery possession certificate was signed by the petitioners themselves; and handing over of possession was witnessed by several others. Learned counsel would submit that, when possession of the shops was taken by the fifth respondent, the petitioners were in arrears of rent; and it is only after they came to know that the fifth respondent intended to hold fresh auctions that they had taken steps to clear the arrears of rent. Learned counsel would submit that the auction notice was issued on 27.02.2010 proposing to hold auction on 10.03.2010. Sri K.A. Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioner, would deny the allegation that petitioners had signed the delivery possession certificate and that the fifth respondent had locked and sealed the premises. I consider it wholly unnecessary to examine these factual aspects as the revision petitions filed by the petitioners herein are, admittedly, pending before the first respondent along with petitions seeking stay. Since lease of the shops are being put to auction on 10.03.2010, I consider it appropriate to direct the first respondent to dispose of the stay petitions filed by the petitioners herein on or before 09.03.2010. Sri P.C. Reddy, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, is present in the Court and undertakes to communicate to the respondents their obligations under this order. All the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:02.03.2010 usd