IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 28565 of 2007 Between: 1 M. Subbamma W/o. Late Suryanarayana D/o.Late M. Rama Lingam R/o. 8-2-86, Second Bazar, Secunderabad. 2 T. Rajeswari W/o. Late T. Sadanand Secunderabad. 3 M.P.Hemalatha W/o. Late M.P. Basavaiah Secunderabad. 4 S. Udaya Bhaskar S/o. S. Mallikarjuna Rao Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments Twin Cities , Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Secunderabad. 3 The Manager, Sri Panditaradhya Matam, Endowment Department, Kummariguda, Secunderabad. .....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 to issue a writ or writs more particularly in the nature of writ or writs more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in issuing impugned circular dt. 16-10- 2007 and the impugned order under the caption of notice dt.1-12-2007 as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and cannot be justified and without jurisidction and violation of principal of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to evict the petitioners without following any due process of law as per provisions of Act 30 of 1987 in the interest of justice and pass such other and further order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 28565 of 2007 Order: Heard Sri Ch. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Ch. Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments appearing on behalf of the third respondent. The order impugned in this writ petition is a notice dated 01.12.2007 whereby the third respondent called upon the tenants of the Mutt to clear all their dues and vacate the shop/house/room and handover the same to him. The contention of the petitioners, in short, is that it is the first respondent who is entitled to initiate eviction proceedings against the tenants of the Mutt and that the third respondent has no jurisdiction to do so. Sri Ch. Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent, would point out that the third respondent had, in fact, addressed a letter to the second respondent on 02.08.2007 bringing to his notice the dilapidated condition of the structure and the urgent need to evict the tenants, so that new construction can be undertaken to increase the income of the Mutt. It is not in dispute that it is the first respondent who is the competent authority to evict the tenants of the Mutt. It is also not in dispute that the third respondent has not been conferred any power under the Endowments Act to evict tenants of the Mutt concerned. The impugned notice issued by the third respondent is without jurisdiction and is, accordingly, quashed. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the competent authority from initiating proceedings to evict the petitioners and other tenants of the Mutt in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 21.11.2008 Nsr