IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23452 of 2005 Between: K. Satyanarayana, S/o. Gangaraju, Agriculturist, R/o. TEEPARRU Village, Peravali Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Endowment Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, ELURU, West Godavari District. 3 Akondi Satyanaryana, S/o. Suryanarayana, Service, R/o. TEEPARRU Village, West Godavari District. 4 Puranpanda Suryavalli Mahalakshmi @ Lakshmi D/o. Late Sivarama Krishna Panchamukhi, R/o. TEEPARRU Village, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. C.M.R.VELU FOR MR.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 & 4: MR. K.V.A.RAMA PRASAD The Court made the following : ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Heard Sri C.M.R.Velu, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri K.V.A.Rama Prasad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in safeguarding the endowment properties belonging to Hanumaddasa Choultry (presently called as Hanumaddasa Asramam) and Annapaneeya Sathram of Ekadasa Mukhi Anjaneya Swamy Temple of Teeparru Village and Gram Panchayat, West Godavari District as illegal and arbitrary. In his affidavit, the petitioner who claims to be the resident of Teeparru Village and interested in the well being of the above mentioned institutions made several allegations against respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are allegedly maintaining the said two institutions. He submitted that despite his complaints made to respondent No.2 against the said respondents, no action is being taken. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, the allegation of inaction on their part has been denied. Respondent No.1 further stated that on the complaints received in respect of omissions and commissions by respondent Nos.3 and 4, an enquiry was instituted in R.C.No.A1/7749/97, dated 11.07.1997 and the same is pending. I have considered the pleadings, material and submissions of the learned counsel and I am of the view that even on respondent No.1’s own showing, an enquiry was instituted and the same is pending. It is not comprehensible that an enquiry, which was stated to be initiated in the year 1997 was still kept pending till 24.02.2006 when respondent No.1 filed his counter-affidavit. It is needless to point out that whenever allegations of omissions and commissions are made while managing the charitable or religious institutions, the authorities who are at the helm of affairs are expected to act with reasonable dispatch, so that such omissions and commissions shall not be allowed to be continued for long. This Court is thoroughly dissatisfied with the manner in which respondent No.1 has dragged on the enquiry initiated by him for years on end. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to conclude the enquiry and pass appropriate order, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.Nos.30111 of 2005 and 15778 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th JULY, 2008. kvni