Dismissed

Akula Panduranga Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Jul 2025WP/19482/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ relief against the inaction of administrative authorities in appointing an Executive Officer for a religious trust. The Court found that the authorities had subsequently issued an order directing the Executive Officer to assume charge, rendering the petition infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs.

Akula Panduranga Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

[³³⁰² ]

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 19482 OF 2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

Akula Panduranga Rao, S/o Late A.V.Ramiah, Age 87 years, Occ ; Senior Trustee, [/unnurukapu Vidyarthi Vasathi Gruham, R/o H No.3-4-21811, kutbiguda, Kachiguda, kachiguda station Road, Hyderabad-500027

¶11

.....PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Endowments-ll, Government of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana-500063.

¶14

The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Government of Telangana.

¶15

3 The Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad, Endowments Department, Government of Telangana.

¶16

Assistant Commissioner, Hyderabad Endowments Department, Government of Telangana.

¶17

Executive Officer, (FAC) Tulja Bhavan mshala 0/o. 34-775, Kachiguda, Hyderabad- 500027.

¶18

6 Munnuru Kapu Vidyarthi Vasathi Gruham, Rep by its Executive Officer 0/o. 3- 3-43, Kachiguda, Hyderabad-500027.

¶19

..,..RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition Under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, 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 inaction of Respondent no.2 to 5 for nonimplementation of Respondent no.2 vide proceedings ln Rc.No. 4211168112019 dated 25.06.2025 where Respondent no.5 was directed to take charge as Executive Officer of Respondent no.6 Munnurukapu Vidyarthi Vasathi Gruham

¶21

------7

¶22

Trust with immediate effect but failed to do so and the same is arbitiary, irlegal and in violation of the objectives and provisions of TELANGANA cHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIoNS AND ENDoWIVENTS ACT,1987 and also in violation Respondent no 2 vide proceedings rn Rc.No. A2111681/2019 dated.25.06.2025, consequenfly direct the Respondent no.2 to 5 to imprement Respondent no.2 vide proceedings rn Rc.No. A2t11681r2o1g dared. 2s.06.202s in true spirit by ensuring that the Respondent no.5 who has been appointed as Executive officer of Respondent no.6 Munnurukapu Vidyarthi Vasathi Gruham Trust with Full Additionar charge takes charge with immediate effect.

¶23

l.A.NO:1 OF 2025

¶24

Petition Under Section 15.1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to 5 and more particurarry to imprement Respondent no.2 vide proceedings rn Rc.No. A2/11681t2o19 dated 25 06 2025 by ensurrng that Respondent no.5 takes charge as Executive officer of Respondent no.6 Munnurukapu Vidyarthi Vasathi Gruham Trust with immedrate effect.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI ABHTNAV KRISHNA UppALURI

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : AGp FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶27

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.5 & 6 : SRI PRABHAKAR pERl

¶28

The Court made the following ORDER

¶29

I I

¶30

i'(

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶32

WRTT PETITION No.19482^{OF 2o25}

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the^{petitioner,learned} Assistant Government Pieader^{for Endowmentsfor the} respondent Nos.l to^{4, learnedStanding Counsel for} the respondent No.5 and^{Sri Prabhakar Peri appearing} lor the respondent No.6^{and perrrsed the materia-lon} record.

¶35

Aggrieved by the^{action of the respondent} Nos.2 to 5 for non-implementation^{of the orderpassed} by the respondent No.2^{uide proceedingsin} Itc.No.A2l l1681,l 2019 dated^{25.06.2025, wherein the} rcspondent No.5 was^{directed lotake charge as} Executive Officer of the^{respondentNo.6-Munnuru} Kapu Viclyarthi Vasathi^{Gruham Trust with immediate} cffect but failed to do^{so, the petitionerfiled the present} writ petition.

¶36

Learned Assistant Government^Pleaderfor End.owments has^{producedproceedings ofthe} Executive Officer of Munnuru Kapu^{VidyarthiVasathi}

¶37

!-w[
rY

¶38

Gruham uide Lr.No.18/MKWG/TB/2025 dated

¶39

14.07.2025, wherein it is stated that the Executive Officer has assumed charge as per the order dated 25.06.2025. In view of the same, the causc in the writ petition does nct survive and requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶40

Learned counsel lor the writ petitioner and learned counsel for thc respondent No.6 not disputed the submissions madc by the le arncd Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments.

¶41

In view of thc same, rccording thc

¶42

aforementioned submissions of the learncd Assistant Government Pleader for Endowrnents, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. 'I'here shall bc no order as to costs

¶43

As sequel to it, Miscellaleous Petitions, if any,

¶44

pending in this writ petrtion shail stand closed.

¶45

SD/.A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

i/TRUE COPY//

? SECTION OFFICER

Two CCs to GP FOR ENDOWMENTS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶50

One CC to SRI ABHINAV KRISHNA UPPALUR|, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI PRABHAKAR PERI, Advocate (OPUC) 4. Two CD Copies

SA paBS \ I\

t \

HIGH COURT

DATED:1610712025

i_ . .;r.:,.
" i,',
t- ii
rl,i 206 ::- il
i, tt
.::' ,:.
,,,/

ORDER

WP.No.19482 of 2025

DISMISSING THE W.P

AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS. (r- / TVT"S

Akula Panduranga Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akula Panduranga Rao 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Chandra Prakash, Vs State of Telangana

Masagani Raghu Ramaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Teijeen Jaysree Vs The State of Telangana

K.Sudarshan Reddy, Vs State of Telangana

M/s. Konaseema Infra Projects Vs The State of Telangana

Maidam Narayana Vs The State of Telangana