THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 3867 OF 2010 Dated 10th June, 2010 Between: Sri Sri Sri Kamakshi and Kailasanadheswara Swamy Temple …Petitioner And The District Collector and six others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondents 4 & 5: AGP for Home Counsel for respondents 6 & 7: Sri J.Sudheer The Court made the following ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the construction work relating to Sri Sri Sri Kamakshi and Kailasanadheswara Swamy Temple of Palicherlapadu Village, Venkatachalam Mandal, Nellore District, without notice or initiating due process of law as illegal and arbitrary. A perusal of the pleadings contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the vacate stay application shows that the members of the petitioner Committee on one side and respondents 6 and 7 and others on the other side have certain disputes over the constructions being made in respect of the abovementioned temple. The grievance of the petitioner is that without following any process known to law, the official respondents have been trying to interfere with such construction. At the hearing, Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel representing respondents 6 and 7, placed before the Court the understanding reached between the members of the petitioner Committee and respondents 6 and 7 at the intervention of the Revenue and Police officials. He submitted that suppressing the said understanding, the members of the petitioner Committee hurriedly constituted themselves into a Committee and filed the present writ petition. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 4 and 5 submitted that the Police will not interfere with the construction activity without following due process of law. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue also made a similar statement. In my opinion, the dispute pertaining to a private temple between the members of the petitioner Committee and respondents 6 and 7 is not amenable for adjudication in a writ petition. If the disputes between them still persist, they are entitled to avail the common law remedy of a civil suit in a competent civil Court. The official respondents also cannot interfere with such disputes without following due process of law. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, interim order dated 19.02.2010 is vacated. WPMP No.5034 of 2010 and WVMP No.1325 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 10th June, 2010 vrn