HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO. 2643 OF 2005 Monday, the Thirteenth day of December, Two Thousand and ten Between: Sri Pancha Pattabhi Ramaswamy temple, Rep. by its Chairman of the Trust Board of the temple, Chettipalli Sudershan Rao Petitioner AND The Commissioner of Endowments A.P., Hyderabad, and another Respondents ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the proceedings in Letter No. C/4164/2003 dated 30.12.2004 issued by the second respondent directing to allot the temple lands to the archakas under the service rendering scheme, as illegal and arbitrary and to consequently set aside the same. When the matter was listed on 10.12.2010 none appeared nor there was any representation. Therefore, the writ petition was directed to be posted under the caption for dismissal. Even today, when the matter is listed under the caption for dismissal, none appeared nor there is any representation. Further in the light of the order passed in WVMP No.800 of 2005 in WPMP no. 3578 of 2005 dated, 12.8.2005, which reads as under: “…The Chairman of the Trust Board of Sri Pancha Pattabhi Ramaswamy Temple, Buggamadhavaram village, Nalgonda District, assails the order of second respondent dated 30.12.2004 whereby and whereunder Manager of the petitioner temple was directed to allot lands in Sy.Nos.233 to 236 and 280 to the Archakas under service rendering scheme. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the person who filed the present writ petition on behalf of the temple is no more the Chairman of the Board of Trustee and that pursuant to the impugned order three Archakas, respondents 3 to 5 herein, are in possession of the land and cultivating the land. Further, as seen from the impugned order, the same came to be passed in accordance with the Circular issued by first respondent whereby and whereunder all the subordinate officials in the Department of Endowments are directed not to disturb Archakas from possession of the temple lands till regular scales of pay are fixed. In that view of the matter, petitioner has no prima facie case and balance of convenience. The interim order passed by this court is therefore vacated. The W.V.M.P. is accordingly allowed….” the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ Justice C.V. Ramulu December 13, 2010 MAS