THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.31517 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Sri Balaji Venkateshwara Swamy Temple Rep. By its Founder Raja Sanjay Gopal Saincher …. PETITIONER And 1. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Ranga Reddy Distict, Yadagiri Bhavan, Barkathpura, Hyderabad, and others. …. RESPONDENTS Counsel for petitioner: Sri Harender Pershad Counsel for respondent No.1: G.P. for Endowments Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: Sri Pavan Kumar Pujari Counsel for respondent No.4: Ms. G. Sreechandra The Court made the following order: ORDER: The petitioner-institution along with the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Ranga Reddy District, the 1st respondent herein, filed an application in O.A.No.1A of 2010 under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’), to declare respondents 2 and 3 as encroachers of the temple schedule property and to order their eviction therefrom. The petitioner is a registered institution and notified under Section 6(b) of the Act. The institution has been under the management of a Manager/Executive Officer appointed by the Department. There are four Dharmasalas near the temple, viz., Tulasi Thota and three sub-temples. The 2nd respondent, who is said to be an Archaka of the temple started demolition of a sub-temple by encroaching the schedule property. Initially, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.1149 of 2010 for permanent injunction. After withdrawing the said suit, the petitioner filed O.A. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings the petitioner obtained ad interim injunction restraining respondents 2 and 3 from obstructing the removal of the encroachment of temple land till 11.08.2010. The matter was not taken up due to the lack of quorum. In the circumstances, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking continuation of the said orders. This Court by interim orders dated 15.12.2010 while directing notice before admission granted interim order restraining the 2nd respondent from carrying out construction activity within the premises of the temple. Now respondents 2 and 3 have filed a petition to vacate the said interim order. Heard Sri Vidyasagar representing Sri Harender Pershad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pavan Kumar Pujari, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and Ms. G. Sreechandra learned counsel for respondent No.4 and with the consent of all the counsel, the writ petition itself is disposed of. As can be seen from the aforesaid facts and material, the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1A of 2010 dated 4.08.2010 is only an ad interim injunction. The said order was restricted till 11.08.2010, apparently due to the lack of quorum. It is now represented that the Tribunal is functioning and the O.A. can now be heard. In view of the said representation without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the Tribunal to consider and dispose of the I.A. after due notice to both the parties. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Tribunal to dispose of O.A.No.1A of 2010 after due notice to both the parties, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. In the meanwhile the said ad interim injunction shall continue to be in force. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 29th June, 2011 Js