Dismissed

The State of Telangana and Another v. Sri Sri Jagadguru Shankaracharya Mahasamsthanam and 3 Others

Telangana HC17 Feb 2021WA/46/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the writ appeal was not maintainable because interim stay applications and a vacate application filed by the respondents were still pending disposal by the Single Judge.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed as misconceived and not maintainable; costs of Rs. 10,000 to be deposited with the Legal Services Committee.

The State of Telangana and Another… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

I i)

¶6

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO. 46 OF 2021

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred the Order Dated 05.11.2020, passed in LA.Nos. 2 & 3 of 2020 in WP.No.19598 of 2020 on the file of the High Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Commissioner Endowments Department, Hyderabad, Telangana-500 022.

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 001.

¶12

...APPELLANTS

¶13

AND1. Sri Sri Jagadguru Shankaracharya [/ahasamsthanam, Dakshinamnaya Sri Sharada Peetham Sringeri 577 139 Karnataka lndia Rep. by Sri P.Kasi Visweswara Rao Dharmadhikari of Sri Kanakadurga Sri Naga Lakshmi Temple, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶14

Sri B.Ramaraju, S/o. [tr].Gandaiah, Aged about 62^years, Occ: Chairman Advisory Committee, Sri Kanakadurga Naga LaxJni Temple, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶15

Sri P.il/lahendar Rao, S/o. Late P.Bhaskar Rao, Aged about 76^years, Occ: Government Employee (Retd) Door No.5-9-427, Near Municipal Library, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad.

¶16

Smt.S.Ann'apuina, Executive Officer {in charge) Assistant Commissioner and Executive Officer, Sri Yellamma Pochamma Temple, Balkampet, Hyderabad.

¶17

(Respondent Nos.3 & 4 are not necessary parties in this petition)

¶18

,..RESPONDENTS

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend the orders^passed in lA Nos.2&3 of 2020 in W.P No.19598 of^{2020 dated} 0511112020 pending disposal of the^present writ appeal.

¶21

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI M. VIJAY PRAKASH,

¶22

GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶23

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI K. VIVEK REDDY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: SRI M. VIDYA SAGAR

¶25

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶26

THE HON'BL^{E THE CHIEFJUSTICEHTMAKOHLI} AND TTIE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶27

w.A.No.46^{of 2021}

¶28

JUDGMENT:^{(PertheHon'blethe Chief Justice Hima Kohli)}

¶29

The appellant/State^{is aggrieved by an interim order dated} 05.11.2020^{passed by the learnedSingle Judgeon I'A'Nos'2 and 3 of} 2020 fiied by the^{respondentsNo. Iand 2/writpetitionersin} W.P.No.19598 of 2020.

¶30

In the interim^{applicatiorrmoved by the respondents No'l} and 2lwrit^{petitioners, the prayer made was to restrain the Executive} Officer appointed^{by the appellantNo lfrom interfering with the} day-to-day administration^{being conductedby the writ petitionersin} respect of Kanakadurga^{and Nagalakshmi Temple, Basheerbagh'}

¶31

In the interim order,^{the leamed SingleJudge has observed that} the matter requires^{to be considered and heard finallyafter counter} affidavits are fi1ed^{by the respondents and that there shall be an} interim suspension^{of appointment,as prayedlor'}

¶32

On enquiring from^{leamed counsel for the appellantsas to} whether the interim^{applicationsfiled by the writ petitionersand the} vacate application filed^{by the respondents have been disposedof by} virtue of the impugned^{order, Mr.M'VijayPrakash, leamed} Govemment Pleader tbr^{Enclowmentsconcedes that the said} applications are sti1l^{pendingon the writ file.}

Page 1 of 2

IV.A.No.46 of 2021

In the above circumstances,^{we have requestedleamed counsel} for the appellants to^{addressthis coufion the maintainabilityof the} present appeal. Learned^{counselhasno explanation to offer' In our} opinion, once the^{interim stay applications as also the vacate} application are stil1^{pending, and furthermore,havingregard to the} fact that the learned^{SingleJudge has directed the respondentsto file a} counter affidavit so as^{to hear the matter finally, we see no reason to} entertain the present^{appeal,which iseven otherwisenot} maintainable.

¶37

The present appeal^{is, accordingly,dismissedas misconceived} and not maintainable^{alongwith the pendingapplications, if any, with} costs of Rs.10,000/-^{(Rupees ten thousand only) to be depositedwith} the High Court Legal^{ServicesCommittee'The appellantsare} cautioned to be^{more careful in future in preferringappeals, which,on} the face of it, are^{not maintainable.}

¶38

MEMO^{RAN DUMOFGOSTS}

W.A.N^o.460F2021

Rs. Ps.

Costs Quantified^{by Hon'bleCourt (That the} ;;;;itr;t'^{;r" diiecled} .to^PaY.c9sts.9l tJ.rcioool- lnup"u.^{Ten Thousandonlv) to} 'i'sh-i;t,t Llgai Services Committee'

¶43

TOTAL

¶44

10,000-00
10,000-00

¶45

sD/'cHbvEEJl j$;rF:B',tIHkH

//TRUE^COPY/i

SECTION^OFFICER

t''1 rerangana^at I*""r38!",##r[:gi1ffifl.ffiS,]5,;'r"""fi,['\Ti,l'JoSiSB'tt I Hlt'efi{^{d[ [,i;ru t:urr tlYs:3u EBUS</sup>}

¶50

Two^{CD CoPies'}

NT'

HIGH^GOURT

DATED:17^t0212021

JUDGMENT

WA.No.46^{of 2021}

I
1 tiE SIA
c
O r05 l'1An 202 1

5qc

¶59

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT APPEAL AS NOT} MAINTAINABLE

¶60

%*",

The State of Telangana and Another v. Sri Sri Jagadguru Shankaracharya Mahasamsthanam and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Telangana and Another v. Sri Sri Jagadguru Shankaracharya Mahasamsthanam and 3 Others

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

T. Ramanaiah Vs The Special Chief Secretary to Government Revenue (Uc.Ii)

Madineni Venkaiah Naidu and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Om Sai Kumar Enterprises Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. Nagendar Kankipati Vs Rehabilitation Council of India and 3 Others

M/s.Sri Venkateshwara General Agencies Vs The State Of Telangana, And 8 Others

Smt Meghavath Saritha Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others