IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22244 of 2003 Between: Sri Datta Sai Maruthi Dyana Mandiram, Laxmidevipally., Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District a registered trust bearing registration No.8/2000, rep.by its Secretary Dr.V.Vijay Kumar, s/o V.B.T.S.Rama Rao, aged about 44 years Medical Practitioner, Seetharamamma Memorial Children Hospital, M.G.Road., Kothagudem., Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Joint Commissioner., Endowments Department, M.Z.III, Tilak road., Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner., Endowments Department., Warangal. 3 The Assistant Commissioner., Endowments Department., Khammam. 4 Mallula Prakash, S/o Suryanarayana R/o H.No.2-30., Laxmidevipally., Near Bridge., Kothagudem Mandal., Khammam District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PALIVELA SATYARAJABABU Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for respondent No.4: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 07-10-2003 in R.P.No.13 of 2003 on the file of respondent No.1. At the instance of respondent No.4, respondent No.3 registered the petitioner-temple under Section 43 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”). The said order was questioned by the petitioner before respondent No.2 in O.A.No.147 of 2001. By order dated 04-04-2003, respondent No.2 allowed the said O.A and directed respondent No.3 to delete the petitioner-temple from the register maintained under Section 43 of the Act. Assailing the said order, respondent No.4 ﬁled Revision Petition No.13 of 2003 before respondent No.1. The said revision was allowed by respondent No.1 by his order dated 07-10-2003, which is questioned in this writ petition. At the hearing, Sri Palivela Satyarajababu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.1 passed the impugned order without holding proper hearing. He invited my attention to the averments contained in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, wherein it is categorically stated that on 16-08-2003, arguments were heard in I.A.No.6 of 2003; that respondent No.1, after hearing, reserved orders; that the docket proceedings of respondent No.1 shows that on 16-08-2003 he adjourned the case to 20-09-2003 by endorsing “await records”; that the petitioner or his counsel has not received any order in I.A.No.6 of 2003 and that the main revision petition was coming up for receipt of records from respondent No.2. It is further stated that the revision petition was adjourned from 16-08-2003 to 20-09-2003 and from 20-09-2003 to 24-09-2003 and that as per the docket proceedings dated 24-09-2003, arguments of both sides were heard. The petitioner speciﬁcally contended that no arguments were heard on 24-09-2003 and neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present before respondent No.1 on the said date. The petitioner pointed out that docket proceedings of 24-09-2003 shows that orders were reserved on 24-09-2003 and the case was adjourned to 04-11-2003 and that docket order dated 04-11-2003 contains the endorsement “orders dictated, pronounced by me”. The petitioner also alleged that the date of the order is mentioned as 07-10-2003. The petitioner further pointed out that respondent No.1 appeared to have passed the impugned order after coming to know about his transfer. No counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled controverting the above mentioned contentions in the writ petition. The docket order and the date contained on the impugned order reveal manifest contradiction. The docket does not contain any entry dated 07-10-2003, on which date the impugned order was purported to have been passed. If the said order was passed on 07-10-2003, the date mentioned in the impugned order, no explanation is oﬀered for the absence of the entry in the docket with that date. On the other hand, the docket proceedings contain entry dated 04- 11-2003, on which date the order is purported to have been passed. These circumstances, coupled with non-ﬁling of counter-aﬃdavit, clearly show that the passing of the order by respondent No.1 is shrouded with suspicion. The speciﬁc averment of the petitioner is that neither he nor his counsel was present on 24-09-2003 and that therefore the question of respondent No.1 hearing their arguments did not arise. As noted, the petitioner speciﬁcally alleged that respondent No.1 passed the impugned order after receiving transfer order. In the absence of denial of these specific allegations, I am of the view that the endorsements contained on the docket proceedings of respondent No.1 do not reflect the true state of affairs. For the above mentioned reasons, the order of respondent No.1 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for fresh disposal of the revision, after giving all the parties an opportunity of personal hearing. The Chief Secretary shall cause an enquiry held into the conduct of the Oﬃcer concerned in the manner of disposal of the case in the light of the observations contained in this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 13th November, 2008 Note: Copy of this order shall be marked to the Chief Secretary. vrn