IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7724 of 2009 Between: G.V. Rama Rao, S/o. Venkata Sastry, Pada Kakani Village and Mandal, Guntur Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner Endowment Department O/o. Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad. 2 Assistant Commissioner & Executive Officer Sri Bramaramba Malliswara Swamy Temple, Pada Kakani Village & Mandal, Guntur Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CHALLA.SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for respondent No.1.: --- Counsel for respondent No.2: MR VTM PRASAD The Court made the following: O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside notice dated 09-03-2009 issued by respondent No.2. The petitioner is an Archaka of Sri Brahmaramba Malleswaraswamy Temple of Peda Kakani Village and Mandal, Guntur District. He is in occupation of an accommodation, which is meant for pilgrims. Notice dated 18-02-2009 was issued by respondent No.2 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the said premises. The petitioner gave his explanation dated 03-03-2009, wherein while justifying occupation of the said accommodation, he , however, requested for 15 days’ time to vacate the premises, if respondent No.2 is not satisfied with his explanation. As the petitioner did not vacate the said premises, notice dated 09-03-2009 was issued by respondent No.2 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises. This notice is questioned in this writ petition. Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as the official quarters of the Archaka and other employees were demolished in the Year 2006, respondent No.2 provided an alternative accommodation to the petitioner in a place called ‘Malleshwara Sadanam’ and the petitioner is living in two rooms of the said place. The learned counsel further submitted that till completion of construction of the official quarters, the petitioner may be permitted to use the accommodation. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to continue in occupation of the above said premises, which is admittedly meant for accommodating pilgrims. If an official accommodation is not available to the petitioner, he is required to make his own private arrangement for residential purpose. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in respondent No.2 insisting on the petitioner to vacate the quarters. But, at the same time, respondent No.2 has no justification to withhold the salary and other emoluments payable to the petitioner on the ground that he has not vacated the premises. The petitioner is given two (2) months’ time from today to vacate the premises in question. However, respondent No.2 shall forthwith pay the petitioner, the salary and all other emoluments payable to him, without waiting for his vacation of the accommodation, in question. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition WPMP Nos.10131 and 10132 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 17th April, 2009 vrn