IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 5901 of 2008 Between: Talakonda Veera Swamy S/o.Venkaiah R/o.Basavarappadu Lopudi Grama panchayat,Musunuru Mandal Krishna District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad 2 The Deputy commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada East Godavari District 3 The Asst.Commissioner of Endowments, Vijayawada Krishna District 4 The Inspector of Endowments, Gannavaram Krishna District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more fully in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in interfering with Sri.Tirupathamma Ammavari Temple affais situated in patta land of Rs.No.383/1 of Basavarappadu Lopudi Gram Panchayat Limit Musunuru Mandal, Krishna District belonging to the petitioner as illegal, and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the day to day affairs of Sri Tirupathamma Ammavari Temple situated in patta land of RS.No.383/1 of Basavarappadu ,Lopudi Gram panchayat Limit Musunuru Mandal, Krishna District. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.K.SESHARAJYAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.5901 of 2008 ORDER: Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since no notification under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, notifying the temple in question has been issued, there is no threat as of now and, therefore, no cause of action survives for adjudication in this writ petition. In view of the above, the writ petition is closed. However, this order does not preclude the petitioner from working out his remedies as and when cause of action arises. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 16.02.2009 v v