IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 533 of 2001 Between: Sri Durgalamma Temple, Rep. by its person in Management Sri. K.Dalayya, Durganagar, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Endowment, Endowment Department, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Endowment, Kakinda, East Godavari District. 3 The Asst. Commissioner, Office of the Endowments Department, Turner Choultry, Visakhapatnam. 4 The Deputy Inspector, General of Police, Visakhapatnam. 5 The Sub-Inspector of Police (Law & Order) Vth Town Police Station Area, Visakhapatnam. .....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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents 1 to 3 not appointing the Executive Officer to Shri Durgalamma temple is illegal, arbitrary under Art.14, 26 and 28 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Sec.29 of A.P.C. & H.C.Act, 1987 and further direct the respondents to proceed the case registered under the F.I.R.113 dt:25.5.2000 and complaint dt:11.7.2000 by following due process of law and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.H.MURALI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.533 OF 2001 O R D E R This writ petition was filed seeking a declaration that the action of the Endowments Authorities in not appointing an Executive Officer for Sri Durgalamma Temple, Visakhapatnam, the petitioner herein, is illegal. The petitioner also sought a further direction to the respondents to proceed with the case registered in FIR No.113 dated 25.05.2000 and the complaint dated 11.07.2000 by following the due process of law. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition was deposed to by a person claiming to be the person in Management of the petitioner temple. The grievance canvassed in the writ petition is that the Endowments Department had not taken any action for appointment of any Executive Officer and taking advantage of this, one Simhadri Rao and his henchmen had indulged in offences pertaining to the temple property. Thereupon, a complaint was lodged in the V Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, being FIR No.113 dated 25.05.2000. The writ petition was filed seeking relief with regard to the aforestated grievances. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing on 15.09.2008, it was brought to my notice that W.P.No.24046 of 2000 pertained to the very same temple, and accordingly a direction was issued to the Registry to list the said writ petition along with this writ petition. However, it is now brought to my notice that W.P.No.24046 of 2000 has already been dismissed by order dated 30.02.2008 and a copy of the same is produced before me. The said writ petition was filed by the Committee of the petitioner temple challenging the appointment of an In-charge Executive Officer. A learned Judge of this Court, following the earlier judgments on this aspect, dismissed the writ petition upholding the appointment of the Executive Officer. It is relevant to note that the petitioner in the present case is named as Sri Durgalamma Temple, Visakhapatnam, whereas the temple in W.P.No.24046 of 2000 is referred to as Sri Durgamamba Alaya. However, as the learned counsel for the petitioner himself stated that it is the same temple and that the two writ petitions were connected, this Court need not entertain a doubt with regard to the identity of the temple concerned. In view of the order passed in W.P.No.24046 of 2000 upholding the appointment of an Executive Officer for the temple, it is clear that the grievance of the petitioner in the present case, with regard to the alleged inaction of the Endowments Department as regards the appointment of an Executive Officer, no longer survives. In so far as the criminal case is concerned, it is for the Police authorities, having registered the FIR to investigate the offence and take necessary action thereupon. No issue survives for adjudication in this writ petition as it stands presently. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 30th JULY, 2009 PGS