IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 7207 of 2008 Between: Sri Ram Hanuman Mutt,rep.by its Mahant Rambharose Das, S/o.Late Mahant Moti Das, R/o.Sri Ram Hanuman Mutt, Goodsheds Roas Near Nampally, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Endowment, Department Tilak Road, Hyderabad 2 The Additional Commissioner, Endowment Department Hyderabad 3 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department Hyderabad 4 The Executive Officer,Sri Hanuman Temple, Vijayanagar colony Group of Temple, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to declare the inaction on the part of the respondents in not passing orders either on the stay petition or on the revision filed by the petitioner u/s.93 of the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act,1987 questioning the proceedings D.Dis.No.H- 1/61706/2004 dated 22.11.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unjust by issuing appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.7207 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not passing orders either on the stay petition or on the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 93 of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act, 1987 is arbitrary and illegal. As could be seen from the material on record, the said revision petition was filed challenging the order of the second respondent-Additional Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, dated 22.11.2004. It is to be noted that this Court, while disposing of W.P.Nos.22938 of 2004 and 9701 of 2005 filed by the petitioner herein, by order dated 03.10.2005, directed the first respondent therein to dispose of the revision petition within a period of four weeks. However, the petitioner states that despite the order of this Court, the first respondent failed to pass any order. Having regard to the fact that the order of the second respondent, dated 22.11.2004, was suspended by this Court only for a period of four weeks while disposing of W.P.No.22938 of 2004 and 9701 of 2005, which expired long back, though I am not inclined to stay the operation of the order, dated 22.11.2004 at this stage, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the fifth respondent to dispose of the revision petition pending on its file as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, positively. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ 16.07.2008 Note: Issue CC in three days. (b/o) VGB