Dismissed

L. Govind Kumar, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Apr 2022WP/7296/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging the Endowments Department's permission to reconstruct Sri Mahalakshmi Temple. The court held that tenants and devotees lack locus standi to contest administrative decisions regarding temple reconstruction as they do not suffer any legal injury or have a specific pecuniary interest therein.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed without costs, and the impugned proceedings regarding temple reconstruction were upheld.

L. Govind Kumar, Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH^{DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE^{B.VIJAYSEN REDDY} WRIT PETITION NOS:^{25351OF 2021 AND 7296OF 2022}

¶5

W.P.No.25351 of²⁰²¹

¶6

Between:

¶7

Shivaii Biradar, S/o^{RamaRao, Aged. 70yrs, Occ Business'R/o} tr,,tiniiatsr,mi Temple.^{Feelkhana, Ghoshamahal, Hyderabad'}

¶8

lVl.Purshottam,^{S/o LateI,4.Satya naraya na, Aged48yrs, OccBusiness'Fl/o} GroundFloorshop,MahalakshmiTemple,Feelkhana'Ghosnamanal' Hyderabad.

¶9

3 Naravan Dhande, S/o Balakrishna'^{Aged. 71yrs, Occ Business,Fl/o} - l,,lanjrir<sn.i Temple, Feelkhana, Ghoshamahal, Hyderabad' 4. B.Nandraj, S/o^{B.Pentaiah, Aged. 55yrs, Occ Business,PJo GroundFloor} ii,ni"iuilrrihrlakshri^{remp16, Feelkhana, Ghoshamahal, Hyderabad'}

¶10

Krishna Joshi, S/o^{Durga Shankar, Aged 45yrs, Occ' Business'Fl/o} - tr,lanjtitsr,ri Temple, Feelkhana, Ghoshamahal' Hyderabad'

¶11

Doulal Vvas, S/o^{Amrit Lal, Aged. 62yrs,Occ' Business,RJo Mahalakshmi} Temple, Feelkhana,^{Ghoshamahal, Hyderabad}

¶12

,..PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of^{Telangana,repby its Principal Secretary, Department of} Endowment, Secretariat^{building, Hyderabad.}

¶15

The Commissioner,^{Endowments Department, Bogulkunta'Tilak Road'} Hyderabad.

¶16

The Assistant commissioner^{of Endowments, Bogulkunta'Tilak Road,} Hyderabad.

¶17

The Station House Officer,^{PS Shahinayath Gunj, Feelkhana, Hyderabad'} 5. Shree Mahalakshmi^{Temple, Rep by its Executive Officer,Feelkhana,} Ghoshamahal, HYderabad.

¶18

Srimali Brahman^{Nyati Sangh, Sree Mahalakshmi Temple,Feelkhana,} Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENTS

Contd. . ..2

-2-

Petition Under Article 226 o'f lhe Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more^particularly one in the nature^{of a} writ of mandamus declaring the action of^{the Respondent No 1 to 3 in granting} permission for reconstruction of the Sri Mahalakshmi Temple, Feelkhana, Hyderabad vide proceedings Rc. No H2.5395/2018^{Dated. 04/09/2018and} consequently issuing the Caution Notice dated^{3010712021 and trying to demolish} the Shops bearing no'1 5-B-298 to 308,^{Sri lr/ahalakshmi Temple, Feelkhana,} Ghoshamahal, Hyderabad where the Petitioners^{are tenents without followingthe} due process of law as being illegal, arbitrary,^{unconstitutional, colorable exercise} of power, and in violation of Article 14,^{19,21and 300-4 of the constitution of} lndia and liable to be^quashed ab initio and^{consequentlysuspend the} proceedings Rc. No H2.5395/2018 Dated. 0410912018 and its consequential^the Caution Notice dated 3010712021 and consequently^{direct the respondents not to} demolish Shops bearing no^15-8-298 to 308^{Sri tt/ahalakshmiTemple,} Feelkhana, Ghoshamahal, Hyderabad without following^{the due process of law} pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶23

l.A.NO:1 OF 2021

¶24

Petition under Section^'1 51 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{HighCourt maybe pleasedto} direct the Respondents not to demolish Shops^{bearing no 15-8-298to 308 Sri} Mahalakshmi Temple, Feelkhana, Ghoshamahal,^{Hyderabad without following} the due^process of law^pending disposal of the^{writ petition and pass.}

¶25

I.A.NO:2 OF 2021

¶26

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High^{Court maybe pleasedto} direct suspend the proceedings Rc. No H2.539512018 Dated. 04/09/2018 and^its consequential the Caution Notice dated 3010712021^{pending disposalof the writ} petition.

¶27

Cou nse I for the Petitioners : MS.NARGIS AFSHAN KHAN

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : G.P FOR HOME Cou nse I for the Respondent No.5 : SRI.M.JAGAN MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI.BANKATLAL MANDANI

Contd....3

-J-

W.P.NO: 7296^{OF 2022}

¶34

Betwee n:

¶35

1 L. Govind Kumar,.^{S/o L Yadagiri'Aged 4l yrs Occ Business' No 18-5-427'}

¶36

Aliabad, Lal^{Darwaza, PhoolBagh' Hydera0a0'}

¶37

G.Viiav Kumar, G.Viiav Kumar,^{Sio G Kumri G Kumri KumriLal' Aged 4gyrs' Occ Business'R/o 5-5-885'}

¶38

G.Viiav Kumar, G.Viiav Kumar,^{Sio G Kumri G Kumri Kumri} ' ;tri'N6 +bz, Hi.Ji Nagar, Ghosnam'hal' Hvderabad'

¶39

Baoath Roopesh^{Yadav,, S/o Lte Bagath} ly'l1l"T^{Yadav-'Aged {lVrs'Oc-c} " EiXii,"tll"fiio r s-i-zisl'"Gng'ln%t'^{be6idePollce stationMansarhat'} Asifnagar,^HYderabad

¶40

...PETITIONERS

¶41

AND

¶42

1 The State of^{Telangana' rep by its Principal Secretary' Departmentof} Endowment,^{Secretariat building,HyderaDao'}

¶43

2 TheCommissioner,EndowmentsDepartment,Bogulkunta,TilakRoad' Hyderabad.

¶44

3 The Assistant^{Commissioner of Endowments' Bogulkunta'Tilak Road'} Hyderabad.

¶45

4 Shree Mahalakshmi^{Temple, Rep by its Executive Officer' Feelkhana'} Ghoshamahal,^HYderabad'

¶46

5 Srimali Brahman^{Nyati Sangh, Sree Mahalakshmi Temple' Feelkhana'} Hyderabad.

¶47

...RESPONDENTS

¶48

Petition Under^{Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndiapraylS that in the} circumstances^{stated in tn'e-aitiJa"it filedtherewith'the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a^{Writ, ordi J' OiLtilonmore particularlv one in the nature of a} writ of mandamus^{dectarrngtne action of the ResponOeni No 1 to 3 in granting} permission for demolition^{;;;"';;;;;*ction} of ih" sr.i^{N'lahalakshmi remple'} Feelkhana,^{Hvderabadtiiupio"u"Oingt Re' No H715395/2018 Dated'} 1glo1t2o22^{in favourortr-r"" -nJrp""o"nt "no. 5..Societvand consequentlythe} Resoondent no^{5 Society tryingto demolish the EndowedSri Mahalakshmi} ?;#ril, ;;:^{,ln'u"u,-Cno.i,"n1'uhit,nvo""badwithoutfollowins the due process} of law as^{being illegal,,'Oiii"w,u ncon stitu-tio.na l' colorable exercise of power'} of.lhe constitution^{of lndia and} and in violation^{of Article ]'i,i6,zl} '"J-ioo-n liable to be^{quashed ao iniiioJnO tont"qu"ntly direct the Respondents not to} demolish the^{Endowed i'ii'"rr,'rn,r" r.r, rni Temple, Feelkhana, Ghoshamahal'} Hvderabad bearing^{no- f S-A-ZSAto303 and 307 Sri Mahalakshmi} "Grrosnamar,at, HyOeraOad without following the due process iJ."r".r""rrnana, oitaw^{penOingdisposal of the writ petition and pass'}

Contd " "4

;

-4-

l.A.NO:1 OF 2022

Petition Under Secfion^{151 cPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavlt filed^{in support of the petition,the High court maybe pleasedto} direct the Respondents^{not to demolishsri Mahalakshmi Temple, Feelkhana,} Ghoshamahal, Hyderabad^{bearingno 15-8-298 to 303 and 307 without following} the due^{process of law pending disposalof the writ petition and pass'}

¶54

Counsel for the Petitioners:^{M/s.NARGlS AFSHAN KHAN}

¶55

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.'lto 3 : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS}

¶56

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.4 : SRI.M.JAGAN MOHAN REDDY}

¶57

Counsel forthe^{Respondent No'5: SRI.BANKATLALMANDANI}

¶58

The Gourt made the^{followingCOMMON ORDER}

¶59

l=t

¶60

HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEB. VIJAYSEN REDDY} WRIT PETITION Nos'2^{5351 oF 2021AND 7296 0F 2022} COMM ON ORDER:

¶61

W.P. No.25351 ol 2021^{is filed to declareaction of} respondent Nos. I^{to 3 in granting permission for reconstructionof} Sree Mahalakshmi^{Temple, Feelkhana,Hyderabad, to respondent} No.6 - Srimali^{Brahman Nyati Sangh, Sree Mahalakshmi Temple'} Feelkhana, Goshamahal,^{Hyderabad, videproceedings} Rc.No.H2.5395/201^{8 dated04'09.2018.}

¶62

W.P. No.7296^{of 2022 is filed to declareactionof} respondent Nos.l^{to 3 in grantingpermission for demolitionand} reconstruction of^{Sree Mahalskhmi Temple, Feelkhana'} Hyderabad, vide^{proceedings Rc'No'H7/5395/2018dated} t9.0r.2022.

¶63

The^{petitionersin W.P. No'25351of 2021claim to be} tenants of Sree^{MahalakshmiTemple, Feelkhana'Goshamahal'} Hyderabad^{(hereinafter referredto as "Ternple")' The petitioners} also claim to be^{devotees and inmatesofthe Temple'}

The petitioners in W.P. No.7296 of 2022 claim to be devotees of the Temple.

¶69

It is not in dispute that the Temple is endowed property as per File No.15/2-31 I Awkaf of 1358 Fasli (dated 17.02.1959) recorded in Muntakhab Kitabul Awkaf of the office of the Superintendent, Awkaf - Government Religious Affairs Department.

¶70

The case of the petitioners is that respondent No.2 - the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Boggulkunta, Tilak Road, Hyderabad, has accorded permission by the impugned proceedings for demolition of old structure and reconstruction of the Temple which includes shops and open place admeasuring 860 square yards. The petitioners did not have knowledge of the impugned permission granted to Srimali Brahman Nyati Sangh and Sree Mahalakshmi Temple authorities. When an attempt was made to evict the petitioners from the Temple, they have filed W.p. Nos.3l120 of 2015 and 41408 of 2016 which were disposed of by the order dated 30.11.2016 directing the respondents to issue fresh

¶71

¶72

notification in respect of auction of leasehold rights of the property in question and 1eft open for the petitioners to participate in the auction. The petitioners are dependent on their petty business running in the leased out prernises of the Temple. The petitioners have submitted their respective objections dated 27.08.2021 and 28.08.2021 pursuant to the caution notice dated 30.07.2021 but the respondents have not considered their objections and there is threat of eviction by the respondents.

¶73

(i) The petitioners sought a direction not to demolish their shops bearing Nos. 15-8-298 to 308, Sree Mahalakshmi Temple, Feelkhana, Ghoshamahal, Hyderabad, without following due process of law.

¶74

(ii) The case of the petitioners in W.P. No.7296 of 2022 is that the Temple society has filed a civil suit in O.S. No.1 of 1996 on the file of IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to declare the proceedings in Rc.No.Dl5289l95 inviting applications to constitute a Tnrst Board 1'or the Temple. The said suit was returned by the-eourt. The Ternple Society preferred appeal in

¶75

¶76

¶77

C.M.A. No.252 of^{1996 on the file of the Chief Judge,City Civil} Court, Hyderabad,^{and the same was dismissed on 27'01'1997} directing the Temple^{to approachthe competentauthority' The} Temple filed revisions in^{R.P. Nos.38of 1997and 39 of 7997} before the Regional Joint^{Commissionerchallenging appointment} of Executive Officer^{as Single Trustee of the Temple and against} the notification for^{constitution of a Trust Board for the Temple'} The said revisions^{were dismissed on 02.12.1997.}

¶78

(iii) The Temple filed O'A.^No.56 of^{1997 before the} Deputy Commissioner,^{Endowment Department, to declarethe} society as founder of the^{Temple. The suit was orderedon} 23.05.2008 by the Deputy^{Commissioner hotding that the Temple} is an endowed^{property, but} it^{is denominationalin character} belonging to Srimali^{BrahimCommunity,and the Societyis} entitled to manage the^{institution.The said order was confirmed} by the Commissioner of^{Endowments under Section87(3) of the} Act 3312007 by reserving^{rights to appointan ExecutiveOfficer,by} the order dated 28.07.2008.

¶79

¶80

)

¶81

(iv) It is submitted that there is a threat from the Society to

¶82

convert the Ternple exclusively for its own community and put an embargo on the general public from performing pooja. The official respondents are hand in glove with the Ternple Society and trying to demolish the Temple in the guise of the impugned proceedings.

¶83

Respondent No.3 - the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Bogulkunta, Tilak Road, Hyderabad; the^Temple (respondent No.5 in W.P. No.25351 and respondent No.4 in W.P. No.7296 of 2021), Srimali Brahrnan Nyati Sangh^{(respondentNo.6} in W.P. No.25351 ol 2021 and respondent No.5^{in W.P. No.7296} ol 2021) filed counter specifically contending^{that the petitioners} do not have locus standi to challenge the irnpugned^proceedings' Inter alia, it is submitted that the Commissioner^{of Endowments is} empowered to take necessary steps for better^{administrationand} protection of institutions under Section 8 of the^{AndhraPradesh} Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions^{and Endowments Act} 1987 which reads as under:

r--

"8. Powers and functions of Commissioner and

¶89

Additional Commissioner -

¶90

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the administration of all charitable and Hindu religious institutions and endowments shalI be under the general superintendence and control of the Commissioner and such superintendence and control shall include the power to pass any order which may be deemed necessary to ensure that such institutions and endowments are properly administered and their income is duly appropriated for the purposes for which they were found or exist.

¶91

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the Commissioner shall exercise the powers conferred on him and perform the functions entrusted to him by or under this Act in respect of such institutions or endorvments in the State as are included in the lists published under clause (a), clause (d) and clause (e) of section 6.

¶92

(3) The pou'ers and f'unctions ol the Additional Commissioner shall be such as may be determined by the Govemment from time 1o time.

¶93

¶94

;

¶95

(4)'l'he Cor:rmissioner may delegate to a Deputy Commissioner any of the powers conlerred on or f'unctions entrusted to the Commissioner by or under this Act including the powers and functions of an Assistant Commissioner which may^be exercised or pertbrmed by the Commissioner under sub-section⁽⁵⁾ but not including the^power and functions of the Commissioner under^sub- section (1), sections 6, 15, 49, 51,66,90,92^and 132 in respect of any institution or endowment^or any class or group of institutions or^endowments in the State, subject to such^{restrictionsand} control as the Government may, by^generalor special order lay down and subject^{also to such} limitations and conditions. if any,^{as maybe} specified in the order of delegation.

¶96

(5) The Commissioner may delegate to^an Assistant Commissioner any of the^powers conlerred on or functions^entrusted to^the Commissioner by or under this Act^exceptthe pou,ers and functions of the Commissioner^under sub-section (1), sections^{6, 15, 49, 51, 66,90,92} and 132 in respect of any^{institution or} endowment in the sub-division^{in chargeof the} Assistant Commissioner^{subject tosuch} restrictions and control as^{the Governmentmay,} by general or special order,^{lay down and subject}

¶97

¶98

¶99

also to such limitations and conditions if any, as may be specified in the order ofdelegation.

¶100

(6) Notwithstanding anything in sections 10 and 1 1, the Commissioner may, by order in w'riting. declare that the exercise and performance of all or any of the powers or functions by the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, shall be subject to such exceptions, limitations and conditions as may be specified in the order and he may himself exercise any power or perform the functions so excepted."

¶101

(i) Caution notice was issued on 30.07.2021 calling upon the general public to furnish any objections or suggestions in respect of the proposed reconstruction of the Temple. Objections were submitted by the petitioners (more particularly petitioner No.3 in W.P. No.7296 of 2022) and the same were rejected vide repoft in File No.D/85312012-I dated 26.10.2021.

¶102

(ii) In the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.25351 of 2021, it is asserted that the petitioners were evicted on 20.03.202 I by following due process of law and that the plea of the petitioners that they are inmates of the Temple is denied.

¶103

;

¶104

¶105

Heard Ms. Nargis Afshan Khan, leamed counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions; Mr. Bankatlal Mandhani, leamed counsel for respondent No.6 in W.p. No.2535 I of 2021, and respondent No.5 in W.P. No.7296 of 2022; Mr. Kotha Jaganmohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments - respondent No.4 Temple; and learned Assistant Government pleader for Endowments, and perused the material on record.

¶106

The Ieamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are tenants / inmates / devotees of the Temple and they have got locus standi to file these writ petitions.

¶107

On the other hand, the leamed counsel for respondent No.6 in W.P. No.25351 of 2021 and respondent No.5 in W.P.No.7296 of 2022 submitted that the petitioners cannot be treated as aggrieved persons. The petitioners in W.P.No.2535l of 202 I clairn to be tenants of the Temple and the petitioners in W.P. No.7296 of 2022 claim to be devotees / inmates of the Temple. The leamed counsel submits that so far as renov ation I reconstruction of the Temple is concemed, the petitioners, who

.=...--

claim to^{be tenants/ inmates i devotees' do not have locus standi as} they do^{not have any interest/ grievancewhatsoever to challenge} the impugned^{proceedings;they are in no way adversely affected'} and therefore,^{both the writ petitionsare liable to be dismissed'}

¶112

The^{point that arises for considerationis whether the} have locus^{standi to challenge the impugned} petitioners proceedings?

¶113

1 1. In^{Jakka Taraka MallikharjunaRao v' State of A'P'r'} while^{consideringthe issue of locus standi' the following} observations^{were made:}

¶114

"It is no doubt^{true that the concept of locus} standi^{cantol be so liberallyadopted Here is a} matter^{wherethe Institutionapproachedthe} Government^{by makingrepresentationsandon the} strength^{of such representations'the impugned} Memo^{had been made' The beneficiaries or} devotees^{normallywould be interestedin the} religious^{institution or a charitable institution'} There may^{be several irregularities or illegalities'} However,^{a broad proposition that a devotee or a} worshipper^{at no point of time would be the}

¶115

I zooa (t) alo zgr

¶116

¶117

¶118

affected party or the aggrieved party or such party would not fall under the definition of "person having interest", cannot be laid down. It is suffice to state that this would depend upon the facts and circumstances of a particular given case."

¶119

In Jasbhai motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar2. the Hon'ble

¶120

Suprerne Court whilc dealing rvith the expression of "aggrieved^person", made lbllou. ing observations^r

¶121

"12. According to most English decisions,ⁱⁿ order to have the locus standi to invoke certiorari .jurisdiction,^{the petitionershouldbe an "aggrieved} person" and in a case of defect of^{jurisdiction,} such a petitioner will be entitled to a^{writ of} certiorari as a matter of course, but if he^{does not} fulfil that character, and is a "stranger",^{the Cou(} will, in its discretion, deny him this extraordinary remedy, save in very special circumstances.^This takes us to the further^{question: Who} is^an "aggrieved person"? And^{what are the} qualifications requisite lor such a status?^The expression "aggrieved^person" denotes^{an elastic,} and, to an extent, an elusive concept.^{It cannotbe} confincd within the bounds of a^{rigid, exact and} comprehensive definition. At best,^{its featurescan}

2 AIR 1976 sc 578

be described in a broad^{tentative manner. Its} scope and meaning^{dependson diverse, variable} factors such as the content^{and intent of the statute} of which contravention^{is alleged,the specific} circumstances of the^{case,the nature and extent of} the petitioner's interest,^{andthe nature and extent} ol the prejudice or injury^{suffered by him.} English Courts have sometimes^{put a restricted} and sometimes a wide^{construction on the} expression "aggrieved^{person". However,some} general tests have been, devised to^ascertain rvhether an applicant is eligible^{lor this category} so as to have the^{necessary locus standior} 'standing' to invoke certiorari^{jurisdiction.}

¶127

I 3. We will first take^{up that line of cases in} which an "aggrieved^{person"has been heldto be} one who has a more^{particularor peculiar interest} of his own beyond^{that of the generalpublic,in} seeing that the law is^{properlyadministered.} The leading case in^{this line is ( 1870) 5} QB⁴⁶⁶ Queen^{v. Justices of Surrey decidedas far backas} i870. There, on the application^{by the highway} board the Justice^{made certificatesthat certain} portions of three roads were unnecessary.^{As a} result, it was ordered that^{the roads should cease} to be repaired by the^parishes.

¶128

¶129

In Bar Council of^{Maharastrav. M.V.} dabholkar (19'75) 2 SCC^{703 = (AIR 1975SC} 2092) a Bench of seven^{leamed Judges of this} Court considered the^{question whetherthe Bar} Council of a State^{was a 'person aggrieved' to} maintain an appeal^{underSection38 olthe} Advocates' Act, 1961.^{Answering the questionin} the affirmative, this Court,^{speaking through Ray} C.J., indicated how the^{expression"person} aggrieved" is to be^{interpreted in the context of a} statute. thus:

¶130

"The meaning of the^{words "a person aggrieved"} tnay vary according to^{the context of the statute.} One of the meanings^{is that a personwill be held} to be aggrieved by^{a decision if that decisionis} materially adverse to^{him Normally,oneis} required to estabtish^{that one hasbeen deniedor} deprived of something^{to whichone is legally} entitled in order to^{make one "a person} aggrieved". Again^{a personis aggrieved ifa legal} burden is imposed^{on him. The meaningof the} words "a person aggrieved"^{is sometimes given a} restricted meaning in^{certain statuteswhich} provide remedies lor the^{protection of private} legal rights. The^{restricted meaning requires} denial or deprivation^{of legal rights. A more} liberal approach is^{requiredin the back ground of}

statutes which^{do not deal withpropertyrights but} deal with^{professional conduct and morality'The} role of the^{Bar Councilunder the Advocates'Act} is comparable^{to the role of a guardian in} professional ethics.^{The words "person aggrieved"} in Sections^{37 and3 8 of the Act are of wide} import and should^{not be subjectedto a restricted} interpretation^{ol possessionor denial of legal} rights or burdens^{or ltnancialinterests "}

¶135

In the^{light of the principle of law laid down by the} Hon'ble^{Supreme Court in Jasbhai MotibhaiDesai's Case (Supra} 2), this Court^{is of the opinion that the petitionerswho claim to be} tenants /^{inmates/ devoteescannot be treatedas aggrievedpersons} so as to^{challenge the impugnedproceedings' The petitioners do} not have any^{interest /grievance whatsoeverin renovation /} reconstruction^{of the Temple' Neither legal injuryis caused to the} petitioners nor^{their legal rights are infringed The petitioners' who} claim to be^{tenants,in W.P' No'25351 of 2021 are stated to have} been evicted^{by followingdue process of lawand that the premises} isunderlockandkeyoftheEndowmentDepartment.Noreplyis filed by the^{petitionersto the assertionof the templein their} counter affidavit^{that the petitionershave been evicted on}

¶136

¶137

¶138

20.03.2021 . Furrher, the petitioners in W.p. 7296 of 2022, who claims to be devotees, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be said to be aggrieved persons. Thus, there are no merits in both these writ petitions and they are accordingry dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶139

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in both the writ petitions stand closed.

¶140

,TRUE COPYi/

¶141

SD/-T.KRISHNA KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶142

one fair copy to the HoN,BLE sRt JUSIcE B.vtJAySEN r8B9t,o oFFlcER (For His Lordship's Kind perusalf

¶143

¶144

tt"r$ ENDowMENrs, High court for the state of reransana ] IrTr!3;t:f ' Iyo"",Cr.otrl: StriP- HoME, Hish court ror the State or retansana at 3, I1 L.R. Copies. . I?:,|.:i,"fB.#l:* Union of rndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and company

¶145

The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad 6. One CC to M/s.NARG^|S.AFSHAN KHAN, Advocate [OpUC] 7. one cc to sRt.M.JAgllv l4oHAN Ridiji,;&""rte (opUC) B ?;S BS Bj[lr^*xniLAi^{nrnr.r'oeni]qi,[i]t" roiuci-,} 10. One spare coov

S.A MMA.t\r

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710412022

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.25351 of 2021

1 t-re SIAf € .<br>e
o
k
€
t) '12 JUL 202 C)
-h
<br>*
)

¶153

AND 7296 ot 2022

¶154

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS

¶155

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶156

L. Govind Kumar, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L. Govind Kumar, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yadavalli Anjali , Anjamma and another Vs The State of Telangana and 8 others

Mutteni Lingaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Manju Bhargavi Vs The State of Telangana

M/s.Taaza International Limited Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Jakkidi Nirmala Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. M. Maruthi Vs The State of Telangana