HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10919 of 2009 Dated: 15-02-2010 Between: Inturi Jagan Mohan Rao. … Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Endowment Department & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10919 of 2009 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, questioning the interlocutory order, dated 25th of April 2009, passed by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner, in I.A.No.24 of 2009 in O.A.No.40 of 2007. O.A.No.40 of 2007 is filed by respondent No.3 for certification as contemplated under Section 133 of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. At one point of time, the petitioner was appointed as a fit person to the Institution in question, and it is his case that the records relating to such Institution were handed over to the subsequently appointed fit person, one Inturi Venkaiah. The petitioner has filed Ex.R-1, in proof of handing over of such records to the said Inturi Venkaiah. The daughters of Inturi Venkaiah were also examined in the proceedings. By filing the application in I.A.No.24 of 2009, the petitioner has sought for a direction to send Ex.R-1 to the Government Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, for comparing the signature of Inturi Venkaiah, which is appearing on Ex.P-1. The case of the petitioner is that he has handed over records to his successor i.e. Inturi Venkaiah, who in turn, has issued Ex.R-1. Though the respondents have denied that the petitioner has handed over such records to the said Inturi Venkaiah, but there is no specific averment, disputing the signature of Inturi Venkaiah on Ex.R-1. The daughters of Inturi Venkaiah were also not examined by the petitioner, with regard to the identification of signatures. In that view of the matter, the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner has rightly rejected the application in I.A.No.24 of 2009, by observing that the said application is filed only to drag on the matter, and that no grounds are made out to refer the signature of Inturi Venkaiah, to the experts of Government Forensic Science Laboratory. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is also of the opinion that the petitioner was not put to any suggestion by the respondents, with regard to the disputed signature of Inturi Venkaiah on Ex.R-1. In that view of the matter, Ex.R-1 can be considered by the authority at the stage of disposal of O.A. itself, so as to record a finding whether such records were handed over to Inturi Venkaiah under Ex.R-1 or not, but there appears no reason at all, at this stage, to seek for directions by way of interlocutory orders, to send Ex.R-1 to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Though the learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the judgment in the case of Thiruvengada Pillai V. Navaneethammal & another[1], but, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the said judgment would not render any assistance in support of his argument. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the document in Ex.R-1, while disposing of O.A.No.40 of 2007, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th February 2010 ajr [1] AIR 2008 SC 1541