Disposed

S.Chandrasekhara Naidu, S/o.Krishnaiah Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Dec 2024WP/24083/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order prohibiting his temple service due to alleged theft committed by his son. Court noted interim suspension allowed participation and, relying on respondent counsel, closed the petition without passing substantive orders on merits or seeking more information. No order passed on costs or prayer.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition closed; no order on costs; miscellaneous applications closed if any.

S.Chandrasekhara Naidu, S/o.Krishnaiah Naidu… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

APHC010449322015

¶2

[3310]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

FRIDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 24083/2015

¶9

Between:

¶10

S.chandrasekhara Naidu, S/o.krishnaiah Naidu

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶16

1.K V SUBRAHMANYA NARUSU

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

1.G RAMANA RAO (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS RAYALASEEMAREGION)

¶19

2.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)

¶20

3..

¶21

The Court made the following Order:

¶22

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶23

seeking the following relief:

¶24

“….. to issue a Writ, Order or Direction particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in issuing the impugned order dated 28.07 2015 prohibiting the petitioner and his family members from performing Pushpa Pallaki Seva as Ubayadhar in the 2^nd respondent temple as illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and Violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to withdraw the impugned orders dated 28.07.2015 and permit

¶25

the petitioner herein to participate and perform Pushpa Pallaki Seva as Ubayadhar in the 2^nd respondent temple and to pass…….”

¶26

The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner was

¶27

working as Ubayadhar in the temple of the 2^nd respondent without any complaints and blemish. But, the 2^nd respondent vide proceedings, dated 28.07.2015, prohibited the petitioner and his family members from performing Pushpa Pallaki Seva, stating that the son of the petitioner Sri S.Srikanth committed theft of Idol of Dakshina Murthy weighing about 96 Kgs of gold and other material from Kasivishweshwara Swamy Devasthanam, Venkatagiri. In pursuance of the preliminary enquiry on 26.06.2015, the said Idol was concealed in his house. The 3^rd name mentioned in the FIR is the son of the petitioner and he is not staying with the petitioner. The FIR clearly discloses that the Idol was seized at the time of vehicle checking near Pericherla centre at about 11.30 PM. Hence, the averments made in the impugned order are baseless and without any proof and contrary to what was stated in the FIR. Aggrieved by the proceedings, dated 28.07.2015, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶28

This Court on 03.08.2015 while issuing “ Rule Nisi ”, has granted interim suspension of operation of the order, dated 28.07.2015 of the 2^nd respondent herein and permitted the petitioner to participate and perform Pushpa Pallaki Seva as Ubayadhar in the 2^nd respondent temple, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents.

¶30

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the Writ Petition. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that as per the interim orders of this Court, dated 03.08.2015 the petitioner and his family members were allowed to participate and perform Pushpa Pallaki Seva as Ubayadhar in the 2^nd respondent temple till date as per their turn and in view of the same, no orders are required to be passed in this Writ Petition and it may be closed.

¶31

Recording the said submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶33

__________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J

¶34

Dated 06.12.2024 TM

¶35

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶36

W.P.No.24083 of 2015

¶37

Date : 06.12.2024 TM

S.Chandrasekhara Naidu, S/o.Krishnaiah Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Chandrasekhara Naidu, S/o.Krishnaiah Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B Rajashekar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Javangula Ramachandra Nath, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V. Krishnamurthy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Yaganti Singaraiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K. Sathibabu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Muchivolu Raja Chandrasekhar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh