THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28917 of 2010 Dated 10th March, 2011 Between: Smt.Chandra Baga Bai …Petitioner And The A.P.Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Durga Prasad Counsel for Respondents: --- The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 07.10.2010, in I.A.No.249 of 2010, in O.A.No.3 of 2009, on the file respondent No.1. This case has a chequered history. The dispute between the petitioner on the one side and respondent Nos.3 to 5 on the other appears to be hanging fire for a number of years. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 filed O.A.No.19 of 2003 under Section 87(1)(h) of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 to declare them as members of the founder family and to de-recognise the petitioner as such. In the said O.A., respondent Nos.3 to 5 filed 21 documents in support of their plea. I.A.No.29 of 2005, for receiving those documents, was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, who was competent at that time to adjudicate on the dispute. The revision petition filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by the Regional Joint Commissioner. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that questioning the said order, she filed a further revision before the Government and that the same is stated to be pending. Subsequently, the O.A., was transferred from Hyderabad to Warangal. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 filed I.A.Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 of 2009 to re-call PW-1, to re-open the matter for further examination-in-chief, to mark some documents and to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for recording PW-1’s evidence. All these I.As., were allowed, against which, the petitioner filed a revision before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Hyderabad. In R.P.No.15 of 2009 filed against the order in I.A.No.4 of 2009 pertaining to appointment of Advocate Commissioner, the Regional Joint Commissioner has initially granted stay for a limited period and feeling aggrieved by non-extension of the stay, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14779 of 2009. This Court while disposing of the said writ petition directed that the stay granted by the Regional Joint Commissioner shall continue till the disposal of the revision petition before him. After constitution of the Endowments Tribunal, the case was transferred from the Deputy Commissioner to its file and when the Tribunal held its sitting at Warangal, memo, dated 27.09.2010, was filed by the petitioner not to proceed with the case further, in view of pendency of revisions before the Government and also before the Regional Joint Commissioner. After the Tribunal held its sitting at Hyderabad to hear the case, the petitioner filed I.A.No.249 of 2010 with a similar relief. The Tribunal disposed of the I.A., and the memo by its common order, which is impugned in this writ petition. At the hearing, Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the two revision petitions filed by the petitioner before the Government and the Regional Joint Commissioner are pending and that without disposing of those cases, if the Tribunal proceeds with the hearing of the case, prejudice will be caused to the petitioner’s interests. In my opinion, in the absence of any interim order granted by the Government or by the Regional Joint Commissioner, except to the extent of appointment of Advocate Commissioner for recording evidence of PW.1, there is no legal impediment for the Tribunal to proceed with the pending O.A., and the applications before it. If the petitioner does not intend the O.A., to be proceeded with, the only appropriate course left to her is to seek appropriate interim orders from the revisional authorities, before which, her revisions are pending. The petitioner has not assigned any reasons why she did not pursue her remedies before the revisional authorities in this regard. On these admitted set of facts, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error in seeking to proceed with the O.A., and the applications pending therein. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue her remedies before the revisional authorities. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.36852 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th March, 2011 VGB