IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1239 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/06/2008 in WP NO : 12600 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between : G. Rajendranath Goud, S/o. late Sri Jagannath Goud, Sri Venkateshwara Swamy Temple, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, R/o. H.No. 1-8-497/3, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT A N D 1 The Commissioner of Endowments, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 2 B. Suresh, S/o. Venkanna, Presently working as Executive Officer, Munurkapu Sangam, Kachiguda X - Roads, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.K.GOVIND Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Division Bench of this Full text of Court made the following : Judgment follows 2nd page THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI A N D THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1239 of 2008 JUDGMENT : (Per the Hon’ble Mrs.Justice T.Meena Kumari) The writ appeal is filed questioning the order dated 18-6-2008 passed in WP.No.12600 of 2008 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition as premature and gave liberty to the appellant to make an appropriate application before the first respondent for furnishing the documents required by him and also for extension of time for submitting the explanation and directed the first respondent that if any such application is made, the first respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law. 2. The writ petition was filed to declare the Memo in RC.No.11/17892/2008, dated 13-5-2008 issued by the first respondent to show cause as to why the payment of cell phone bill amount should not be stopped and as to why the excess amount already paid to him should not be recovered on the ground that the Executive Officer of Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam, Chikkadpally has reported that he has found that the petitioner, who is the Founder Family Member is drawing Rs.3000/- per month towards cell phone charges against the orders issued to a maximum limit of Rs.1,500/- per month. The orders of the Commissioner states that the Founder Family Member should present the bill given by the telephone department to the Executive Officer and the Executive Officer shall pay the bill amount subject to a maximum limit of Rs.1,500/- per month. But the Founder Family Member appears to have been claiming a fixed amount of Rs.3000/- per month irrespective of the bill amount. Further the Executive Officer has reported that he has circulated a note to the Founder Family Member that he is only entitled to claim an amount of Rs.1,500/- per month. The Founder Family Member has given a letter as if the Executive Officer is demanding bribe of Rs.1,000/- every month to release the cheque of Rs.3000/- per month. 3. The learned single Judge after hearing both the parties has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it is premature. But however left open to the appellant to make an appropriate application before the first respondent for furnishing the documents required by him and also for extension of time for submitting the explanation. Aggrieved by the same, present writ appeal is filed. 4. Even before us, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the first respondent has not taken any action even when malafides are attributed to the second respondent on the ground that he was asking Rs.1000/- bribe to release cell phone bills, as he was the then Executive Officer of the temple. 5. But in view of the fact that no order has been passed by the respondent No.2 on the show cause notice, we do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge. Writ Appeal is premature and we also further observe that the appellant is at liberty to make an application before the first respondent for furnishing the documents required by him. 6. To support his contention, the learned counsel also relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in YADAVINDRA PUBLIC SCHOOL ASSOCIATION V/s. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS [1]., wherein it was held: Considering that serious allegations of malafides have been raised in the writ petition, it was not appropriate, in our opinion, for the High Court to have dismissed the writ petition by a detailed order in limine and without notice. When such allegations of malafides are raised and the person against whom the allegations are made has been impleaded as a respondent, it would be appropriate to give an opportunity to the person concerned to file an affidavit and then to decide the case on merits. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore CWP.No.16047 of 1997 to the file of the High Court for decision in accordance with law. Pending disposal of the writ petition, the appellant should not be dispossessed. 7. But, however, in this case, malafides are attributed to the second respondent but not against the authority who issued the show cause notice. In the circumstances, it is left open to the appellant to make appropriate application before the first respondent for furnishing the documents required by him and also for extension of time for submitting the explanation. Since no order has been passed by the first respondent and the appellant has challenged only a show cause notice, under which the appellant was called upon to submit his explanation against the proposed action, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts of this case. 8. Under the above circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order impugned in this writ appeal. The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. _____________________________ JUSTICE C. V. NAGARJUNA REDDY. 05-03-2009. I s L [1] ) (1999) 1 Supreme Court Cases-189