THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.25297 of 2010 ORDER: Alleging inaction on the part of the 3rd respondent, who is the Executive Officer of Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam, in discharging his statutory duties in the up keeping of the temple, the petitioner, claiming to be the devotee of Lord Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy, filed the present writ petition. In the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition, while making allegations about the 3rd respondent not maintaining the temple in hygienic condition and not providing basic amenities to the pilgrims, the petitioner also made allegations that the 3rd respondent permitted the then Deputy Inspector General by name Sowmya Mishra, on 28.04.2009, to have darshanam from ‘Uttara Dwaram’, which is permissible only on Mukkoti Ekadasi, and that on 29.04.2009, he allowed his wife to have Nizaroopa Darshanam on first priority, against the prevailing practice of giving first priority to Poosapati Family to have that privilege in the month of Vysakha in every year. The petitioner, thus, states that he submitted representation dated 18.01.2010 to respondents 1 and 2, bringing the aforesaid facts to their notice and requesting them to take action against the 3rd respondent for his lapses, but no action is taken till date. Hence, he filed the present writ petition, seeking appropriate directions. The 3rd respondent filed detailed counter-affidavit, wherein while denying the allegations made by the petitioner and questioning the maintainability of the writ petition being filed making him as party in his personal capacity, it is stated that various developmental works have been taken up on war-footing basis for the purpose of beautification and development of Simhachalam uphill as Divyakshetram, in pursuance of G.O.Ms. No. 423 dated 26.06.2000 issued by the Government, and also to provide basic facilities to the pilgrims, and in the beginning stage, on account of demolition of old structures and dumping of waste material, the pilgrims were facing some inconvenience, but now most of the works are completed and rest of them are going to be completed shortly, and the petitioner suppressing the present status filed the present writ petition referring to the early stage of developmental works. At paragraph 4 of the counter- affidavit, the details of works that were taken up, their status etc. are also indicated in a tabular form. It is further stated that all pilgrims are allowed through ‘Uttara Dwaram’, which is the central point of all the queue lines going to the deity, and it is the custom in vogue, and thus there is no violation of customs by the 3rd respondent. He further denied the allegation that his wife was allowed to have Nizaroopa Darshanam on 29.04.2009, breaking the customary right of Poosapati family of being the first persons to have the Nizaroopa Darshanam in the month of Vysakha in every year, and he stated that it is only the founder trustee and his family members who had that opportunity of Nizaroopa Darshanam on that day, as per the customs and usages of the temple. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the leaned Standing Counsel for Endowments appearing for respondent No.3. From the averments in the counter-affidavit of the 3rd respondent, it is clear that various developmental works were taken up for the purpose of providing better amenities to the pilgrims and the details of the works indicated therein also show that most of them are completed. This apart, at the hearing, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent produced before this Court, various photographs showing the developmental activities that were taken up in respect of the subject temple. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent is not discharging his statutory duties in the up keeping of the temple cannot be accepted. So far as the allegation that the 3rd respondent allowed the Deputy Inspector General through ‘Uttara Dwaram’, contrary to the customs, is concerned, as is evident from the counter-affidavit of the 3rd respondent, all pilgrims are allowed through ‘Uttara Dwaram’, as per custom in vogue, and thus, no fault on the part of the 3rd respondent can be pointed out in this regard. The other allegation made by the petitioner that the 3rd respondent has given first priority to his wife to have Nizaroopa Darshanam in the month of Vysakha on 29.04.2009, breaking the customary right of the members of Poosapati family, the members of the founder trustee family, of being the first persons to have that privilege in the month of Vysakha every year, is also categorically denied by the 3rd respondent and he stated that the founder trustee and his family members only had that opportunity of Nizaroopa Darshanam, as per the customs and usages of the temple. In the circumstances, no relief much less the relief sought by the petitioner can be granted in the present writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 20th October, 2010 IBL