IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14583 of 2005 Between: Dr. . Madhusudhan Rao, S/o. Y. Rajalingam, Sri Patala Hanuman Temple, Kamatipura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Commissioner, Endowment Department, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 2. The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowment Department, MZ-III, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowment Department, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 4. The Inspector, Endowment Department, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 5. Sri T. Uma Mahender, S/o. Sri K. Narahari, Hyderabad. 6 Smt. K. Madhavi Latha, W/o. Sri K. Bakth, R/o. H.No. 19-1-256, Umdabazar, Doodbowli, Hyderabad. 7 Sri K. Venkata Chalam, S/o. Late Sri K. Ramaiah, R/o. H.No. 19-1-420, Doodbowli, Chatanipura, Hyderabad. 8 Sri N. Satyanarayana, S/o. Kanakaiah, R/o. H.No. 19-1-765, Doodbowli, Hyderabad. 9 Sri D. Satyanarayana, S/o. Late D. Nagabushanam, R/o. H.No. 19-1-617 Doodbowli, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4 : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 9 : None appeared The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondents 1 and 2 in considering representation dated 30-06-2005 of the petitioner and restoring possession of Sri Patala Hanuman Temple, Kamatipura, Hyderabad to the petitioner by removing respondents 5 to 9 as per order dated 09-03-2005 in I.A.No.12 of 2005 in R.P.No.8 of 2005 on the file of respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1 to 4. In the view I am taking, it is not necessary to go into the factual matrix of the case. It will suffice to note that the petitioner claims that the temple in question, namely; Patala Hanuman Temple is a private temple. The petitioner initiated various proceedings for getting a declaration that the said temple is a private temple. Presently O.A.No.30 of 1999 is pending before respondent No.3 in this regard. When the Trust board was constituted by order dated 01-02-2005 by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, the petitioner filed R.P. No.8 of 2005 before respondent No.2 questioning the validity of the same. He also filed I.A.No.12 of 2005 in the said revision petition, which was disposed of by respondent No.2 by order dated 09-03-2005 by granting an order of status quo. The petitioner then made representation dated 30-06-2005 to respondent No.2, wherein he requested for giving a direction to the Inspector of Endowments to remove the lock put by him to enable him and his family members to perform regular puja in the temple. Since no action was taken on the said representation, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Narration of the above mentioned facts shows that the genesis in the present litigation leading to the filing of this writ petition is the constitution of the Trust Board and granting of order of status quo by respondent No.2 in I.A.No.12 of 2005 in R.P.No.8 of 2005. Since it is admitted that the period for which the Trust Board was constituted ended with the expiry of two years in the year 2007, the very cause of action based on which the petitioner initiated proceedings ceased to survive for consideration. Therefore, this writ petition consequently has become infructuous. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that since his O.A., namely; O.A. No.30 of 1999 filed before respondent No.3 is still pending, the petitioner has an abiding interest in the temple and he may be given liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings to protect his possession and administration of temple. Having considered this submission of the learned counsel, the writ petition is disposed of by holding that the cause in the present writ petition relating to constitution of Trust Board has become infructuous and this order does not preclude the petitioner from availing appropriate remedies under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, in respect of the subject temple apart from pursuing O.A.No.30 of 1999 pending before respondent No.3. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 1st July, 2008 vrn