THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8516 of 2011 Dated 30.03.2011 Between: Prism Cements Limited …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A.V.Sivaiah for Sri N.Subba Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments Counsel for respondent No.5: -- Counsel for respondent No.6: Assistant Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the paper publication dated 20.03.2011 made by respondent No.3 in pursuance of proceedings dated 08.03.2011 of respondent No.2. I have heard Sri A.V.Sivaiah, learned counsel representing Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments representing respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the record. The petitioner is a company involved in manufacture of cement. It claimed to have purchased vast extent of land for mining lime stone. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 has granted mining lease over Acs.17.71 cents belonging to three temples, namely, Sri Eswaraswamy temple and Sri Chowdeswarimatha temple of Kotapadu Village and Sri Chennakesavaswamy temple, Kalavatla Village on 22.03.2003. Evidently, in view of interim order granted by a Division Bench of this Court in a piece of public interest litigation prohibiting alienation of endowment lands without permission of the Court, sale deeds were not executed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded that in order to obtain permission of this Court, it has filed an application for impleadment in the pending writ petition and that the same is pending. The present writ petition is filed feeling aggrieved by the proceedings dated 08.03.2011 of respondent No.2, whereby he has requested the Commissioner of Printing and Stationery to publish a notice in the extraordinary Gazette and also a separate letter was addressed to the Advertising Manager, Eenadu News Paper on the same day for publication in the newspaper. In pursuance thereof, notification was published by the Eenadu Newspaper on 20.03.2011, whereby respondent No.2 has invited suggestions for sale of various endowment lands including the lands of the three temples referred to above, which are shown at serial Nos.5, 6 and 7. Immediately, the petitioner submitted its detailed objections, wherein it has inter alia stated that already the properties in respect of which the said notification was issued at serial Nos.4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 are covered by a valid lease in favour of the petitioner and that in the teeth of the interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court prohibiting sale of temple lands without the Court’s permission, no proposals for sale can be made. While no decision is taken on the said objections, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on the apprehension that respondent No.2 may proceed further in pursuance of the said notification. In my opinion, since the petitioner has already filed its objections invited in pursuance of the notification of respondent No.2, it is not appropriate for this Court to express its final opinion on the issues raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. At this juncture, it can only be prima facie observed that respondent No.2 cannot sell the temple land by defeating the rights of the petitioner under the existing lease. Unless respondent No.2 considers the petitioner’s objections and overrules them by giving proper reasons, he cannot proceed with the proposed sale of the land. Therefore, I am of the opinion that in the interest of justice, respondent No.2 shall not take any further steps till such time as he considers the petitioner’s objections in an objective and rational manner and take a final decision thereon. On the premises as above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s objections filed in pursuance of the notification dated 08.03.2011 and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till this exercise is completed, respondent No.2 shall not proceed with the sale of the lands in question. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.10587 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th March, 2011 Note: Issue CC in five days. (B/o) GHN