Disposed

Vemula Damodar Reddy, v. The Commissioner, Endowments Department

Telangana HC10 Dec 2009WP/26986/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the constitution of a temple Trust Board, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the Commissioner to dispose of a pending representation from petitioners within eight weeks. The court stayed further steps in finalizing the Trust Board until the representation was disposed of, then disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to dispose of petitioners' representation within eight weeks and stay further steps in finalizing Trust Board.

Vemula Damodar Reddy, Vs The Commissioner… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT:

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.26986 of 2009

¶6

Between:

¶7

Vemula Damodar Reddy and another

¶8

..... PETITIONERS

¶9

AND

¶10

The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh, boggulakunta, Hyderabad and three others

¶11

..... RESPONDENTS

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard the counsel.

¶14

2. The matter is coming up for admission.

¶15

3. The writ petition is filed praying for the relief of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in constituting the Trust Board to the subject temple, without fixing the rotation among the 3-Founders of the subject temple, through a Notification/Notice in Rc.No.I1/29591/ 2009, 09-07-2009, and Consequential Memo in Rc.No.I1/ 29591/2009 dated 11-11-2009, of the first respondent Commissioner, Endowments, Hyderabad herein in calling for the antecedent report of the applications received from the interested persons for trustees of Sri Rama

¶16

Sahitha Satyanarayana Swamy Temple, Ramanthapur, Uppal, R.R. District, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of principles of natural justice, without following procedure in law, consequently set-aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, and unjust, and pass such other suitable orders.

¶17

4. Several facts had been narrated in detail in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated that a representation dated 21-11-2009 already had been made to the first and second respondents by the petitioners.

¶18

5. In view of the facts and circumstances, let the first respondent consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioners dated 21-11-2009 within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the representation is disposed of by the first respondent no further steps to be taken in the finalization of the constitution of the Trust Board.

¶19

6. The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶20

P.S. NARAYANA, J

¶21

December 10, 2009. PN

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.26986 of 2009

¶24

December 10, 2009

Vemula Damodar Reddy, v. The Commissioner, Endowments Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vemula Damodar Reddy, v. The Commissioner, Endowments Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajula Satyanarayana Vs The Principal , Loyola Institute of Technology and Manage

S.Laxmi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh rep by Secretary

P.Razia Begum Vs The State of Ap., rep.by its District Collector

Chennam RamaKrishna, Vs Ganisetti Subba Rao

Ravindra Bharathi College of Education Vs Acharya Nagarjuna University

A. Mallikarjuna Rao Vs The District Panchayat Officer ( Fac )