The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.20927 of 2011 Date: 12-12-2011 Between: T.Srinivasa Sharma ..... Petitioner AND The Tirumala Tirupathi devasthanam, Tirupathi, rep. by its Executive Officer and 2 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.K.Chidambaram Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.Y.V.Ravi Prasad, SC for TTD The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Memo in Roc.No.C2/05/SVVP/TML/2011, dated 29-06-2011, of respondent No.2. I have heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (for short ‘TTD’), representing the respondents. The petitioner claims to be the founder family member of Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Keesaragutta (for short ‘the Temple’), and as such, he was recognized as Chairman of the said temple. The petitioner averred that, based on a representation made by the founder trustee of the Temple, respondent No.1- TTD, represented by its Executive Officer, accorded permission to establish Veda Pathasala at Keesaragutta, with its financial assistance; that, accordingly, buildings were constructed for running the Veda Pathasala over an extent of Ac.10-00 and; that the Veda Pathasala is being run therein. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the impugned proceedings of respondent No.2 whereby respondent No.3 was requested to depute two Sukla Yajur Veda Pandits in local Scheme of Vedaparayanamdars to S.V.Veda Pathasala, Dharmagiri, till completion of recruitment. The petitioner pleaded that, out of two Sukla Yajur Veda Pandits, one is sought to be deputed from the Veda Pathasala of Keesaragutta. According to the petitioner, without a substitute being posted in the Veda Pathasala of Keesaragutta, shifting of one pandit therefrom will cause enormous loss to the said institution. Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for TTD, stated that the petitioner has nothing to do with the Veda Pathasala and that therefore, he has no locus to maintain this Writ Petition. I find force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for TTD because, except claiming that, on a representation made by the founder-trustee of the Temple, the Veda Pathasala is established at Keesaragutta, nothing is pleaded to show that the petitioner is, in any manner, connected with the running of the said Veda Pathasala. Even if the petitioner has emotional attachment with the Veda Pathasala in question, that does not by itself vest him with the locus to interfere with the management of the said Veda Pathasala, which is established and being exclusively run by respondent No.1- TTD. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. As a sequel, WPMP.No.25459 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 12th December, 2011 LUR