IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 4228 of 2004 Between: D.Ramanarasimha Charyulu son of Narsimha Charyulu Sri Seetaramachandra Swamy Devasthanam Illanthakunta Village, Jammikunta Mandal, Karimnagar Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Secretary Revenue (Endowments.II/2 ) Department Govt of AP, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 Sri Kankanala Ganapathi Reddy son of Adi Reddy Illantha Kunta (V) , Jammikunta Mandal, Karimnagar Dist 3 Sri Kammagoni Mallaiah Goud son of Rajaiah, Illantha Kunta (V) , Jammikunta Mandal, Karimnagar Dist 4 Sri Chaduvu Sai Reddy son of Raji Reddy Illantha Kunta (V) , Jammikunta Mandal, Karimnagar Dist 5 Sri Upasi Tirupathi Rao son of Agaiah Gundedu Village, Kamalapur Mandal, Karimnagar Dist 6 Sri Dasari Sreenivas son of Gopal Konthapalli Village , Jammikunta Mandal, Karimnagar Dist 7 Smt. Kaluva Niveditha w/o Prabhakar Reddy Vavilala Village, Jammikunta Mandal, Karimnagar Dist 8 Gurijala Ravinder son of Chander Rao Sreeramulupalli Village, Jammikunta Mandal Karimnagar Dist .....RESPONDENTS 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 order or direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Memo No.5982/Endts.II (2)/2004-2 dt. 25/02/2004 issued by the 1st respondent against the RP.No.250/2003, dt. 10/02/2004 passed by Regional Joint Commissioner MZ-III Hyderabad, is illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the Memo No.5982/Endts.II (2)/2004-2, dt. 25/02/2004 issued by the 1st respondent and to pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.BUCHI BABU. Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 8: SRI M.VIDYASAGAR, Advocate. The Court made the following : W.P.No. 4228 OF 2004 ORDER:- This had come on 20-7-2004 on which date, none appeared and there is no representation on behalf of the writ petitioner. Even today, when the matter is called none appears and there is no representation on behalf of the writ petitioner. Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent who filed vacate stay petition. It is submitted across the Bar that as against the impugned order, the revision filed by the contesting respondent is still pending before the Government under Section 93 of the Hindu Charitable and Religious Endowments Act. In view of the above, I do not find any justification in entertaining this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 22—07—2004. Stv/- Note: Issue C.C. in one week. (B.O.) To 1. The Deputy Secretary Revenue (Endowments.II/2) Department, Govt. of A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. Two CCs to G.P for Endowments, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 3. Two CD copies.