IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 28960 of 2008 Between: Tholem Chinna Narsaiah, S/o. late Manikyam, Pujari, Sri Musalamma Jathara, R/o. Gunjedu, Kothaguda (M), Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner, Endowment Department, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal. 2 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal. 3 The Manager, Sri Musalamma Jathara, Gunjedu (V), Kothaguda (M), Warangal District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order of suspension Ref.No. SMJ/2008 dt. 13-11-2008 issued by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.SALEEM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the order of suspension dated 13.11.2008 issued by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner asserts that he is working as Pradhana Archaka in Sri Musalamma Jathara, which was registered under Section 43 of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. Being Pradana Archaka, on the instructions of the respondents, he asked other pujaris to perform pooja but not to allow their family members including ladies to perform pooja as it affects the sanctity and purity of the Jathara. Therefore, bearing grudge against the petitioner, the said poojaris filed a private complaint against him on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal. Then, the petitioner brought to the notice of the 1st respondent about the false case filed against him. The 1st respondent issued an order dated 7.8.2008 directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to allow any third person, except archakas to perform pooja. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 3rd respondent- Manager, without holding any enquiry and affording any opportunity to him to put forth his grievance, has placed him under suspension based on the instructions of the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 13.11.2008. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The suspension order is dated 13.11.2008, and it has been passed on the instructions of the 1st respondent. The petitioner, without submitting any explanation to the said suspension order or without making any request to the 1st respondent to revoke the suspension order, has directly filed the present writ petition on 26.12.2008. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and as agreed to by the counsel for the respective parties, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to the 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner seeking revocation of the suspension order, and if any such representation is made, the 1st respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 31st December, 2008 bcj