IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 12743 of 2009 Between: Sativada Shankara Rao S/o. Late Suryanarayana R/o. D.No.8-65, Pata Adavivaram, Chinnagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Endowments, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Visakhapatnam. 3 Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, rep. by its Executive Officer. 4 Utsav Committee of Pydithalli Ammavaru Temple, rep.by its Secretary, Kotha Veedhi, 72 ward, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam-28. 5 Landa Venkataramana, Ex-Sarpanch, Adavivaram, Chinnagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. .....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 any writ, order or direction particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus by directing declaring the respondents 1 & 2 to appoint a trustee for the 4t respondent Temples in accordance with the provisions of Endowments Act, 1987 and further declare that proposed action of committee of the 4th respondent sub-temples in trying to dispossess the petitioner during subsistence of lease period until completion of lease period i.e., 30.06.2010 and the proposed auction of leasehold rights of the 4th respondent temples as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the provisions of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also the mandatory provisions A.P. Charitable Religious and Endowments Act, 1987. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.JOSYULA.BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.12743 of 2009 Order: As there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 17.07.2009, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even today also, when the matter is called, none appeared for the petitioner nor is there any representation made on his behalf. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 28.07.2009 VGB