IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:25268 of 2008 Between: Achi Ramanujacharyulu, S/o. Late Sri Rangacharyulu Sthanacharya, Sri Yogananda Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Vedadri, Jaggayyapet Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary Revenue (Endowment IV) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner of Endowments, Endowment Department, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 3 Joint Commissioner of Endowments, Endowment Department, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 4 The Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments Endowments Department, Multi Zone 1, Kakinada. 5 Sri Yogananda Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Vedadri, Rep. by Executive officer, Vedadri, Jaggayapet Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.V.DYUMANI Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4:AGP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in disposing of an un-numbered appeal filed against order, dated 10.04.2005 passed by respondent No.4 as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Smt. V.Dyumani, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments. The petitioner, who claims to be ‘Sthanacharya’ of respondent No.5 temple has been seeking enforcement of G.O.Ms.No.261, dated 20.05.2002 and Circular No.C1/34175/2002, dated 17.07.2002 in the matter of payment of salary and arrears along with all perquisites envisaged therein. The petitioner’s claim was rejected by respondent No.4 by his order, dated 10.04.2005. The petitioner claimed that against the said order, he filed an appeal before respondent No.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite filing of an appeal as far back as 2005, the same is neither registered nor disposed of by respondent No.2. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner is traceable to the power of respondent No.2 under Section 92 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’). A perusal of the said provision shows that respondent No.2 is vested with the revisional power to examine the legality and correctness of any order passed by the inferior authority. Since respondent No.4 is inferior in the hierarchy to respondent No.2, the appeal filed by the petitioner, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is traceable to the revisional jurisdiction of respondent No.2 under Section 92 of the Act. If the purported appeal was already filed by the petitioner, I do not find any justification for respondent No.2 to keep the same pending without being disposed of. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to dispose of the purported appeal filed by the petitioner, if already received by the office of respondent No.2, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving notice to the petitioner. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.33013 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th NOVEMBER, 2008. kvni