THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.14909 OF 2006 DATED 10.04.2007 BETWEEN Nalla Pchamma Devasthanam Committee, rep. By R.Balaiah … Petitioner AND The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabd, and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.14909 OF 2006 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be in-charge of Sri Nalla Pochamma Devasthanam Committee, Shantinagar, North Lallaguda, Secunderabad. It is alleged that fifth respondent filed O.A.No.32 of 2005 before the second respondent seeking a declaration that the temple belongs to Kummara community and that the said community had right to manage the temple. Along with the O.A., it also filed I.A.No.24 of 2005 seeking a direction to the third respondent not to interfere with the management. By order, dated 18.06.2005, second respondent appointed a custodian from the departmental side to administer day-to-day affairs of the temple. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 92 of A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (the Act, for brevity). Again fifth respondent filed I.A.No.24 of 2006 to suspend the interlocutory order, dated 18.06.2005, passed by the second respondent. The same was rejected. By impugned order, dated 12.07.2006, first respondent stayed further proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The matter is coming up for Admission since 20.07.2006. When the case is called, none appears for the petitioner and learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments has placed before this Court the final order in Revision Petition No.27 of 2006, dated 09.01.2007 and the same is made part of record. By the said order, the first respondent dismissed the Revision Petition and vacated the interim order passed in I.A.No.24 of 2005. The first respondent also directed the second respondent to dispose of the main O.A., being O.A.No.32 of 2005 expeditiously. In view of the same, nothing survives in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) 10.04.2007. pln