Allowed

Shri Shirdi Saibaba Sansthan Trust, P and T Colony, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC11 Nov 2025WP/197/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the impugned order dated 07-12-2012 passed by the 1st Respondent in the Revision Petition. The Respondents were directed not to interfere with the administration of the petitioner-Temple without following due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside the impugned order dated 07-12-2012 and directing Respondents not to interfere with the administration of the petitioner-Temple without following due process of law.

Shri Shirdi Saibaba Sansthan Trust, P and T Colony… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰²¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH^{DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENWFIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE^{K. SARATH}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 197^{OF 2013}

¶7

'Between:

¶8

Shri Shirdi Saibaba^{SansthanTrust, P AND T Cololy,Dil-sukhnagar,} Hyderabad, Regd. No.^{646192, rep. by its ChairmanSri V' Narasimha Gupta}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . The Government of^{Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments.ll) Department,} Secretariat, Hyderabad,^{rep. by its Principal Secretary'} -

¶12

1. The Commissioner, Endowmehts^{Department, Andhra Pradesh'} Boooulakunta. Tilak Road,^Hvderabad.

¶13

s ihE-Regionai Joint commissioner,^{Endowments Department, Boggulakunta} Tilak Road, Hyderabad.

¶14

+. f tre nssistant'Commissioner,^{Endowments Department, Boggulakunta Tilak} Road' HYderabad'

¶15

...RE'P.NDENT'

¶16

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filedtherewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue a writ order or direction,^{more particularlyone in the natureof} Writ of Certiorari calling^{for the records relating to and in connection with the Order} bearing Memo No.35156/Endts.ll/A1l2012^{dated07-12-2012made by the 1"r} Respondent in the^{Revision Petitionfiledby the Petitioner and quashthe same as} illegal, arbitrary, unjust and^{consequently directthe Respondents not to interfere} with the administration of^{the sai Mandir situated at survey No.31/2 of} Gaddiannaram, Saroornagar^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, being maintainedby} the Petitioner.

¶17

I.A. NO: I OF 201 3MPMP.^{NO:262 oF 2013)}

¶18

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the High court may be pleased to grant}

¶19

stay of all furtner^{proceedingspursuant} to^{the Order bearing MemoNo.} 35156/Endts.lltA1l2112 dated 07-12-2012^{madeby the 1st Respondent in the} Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner,^{pending disposalof the present Writ} petition.

¶20

l.A. NO: 4 OF 201 3(WPMP. NO: 2349 OF²⁰¹³⁾

¶21

Between:

¶22

Dr. Jayaswamy S/o. late Sri S.Venkaiqlr, Aged^{about 59} 1e9rs.,.99c:-^ElChaimiar, Shrishirdi Saibaba Sansthan Trust,^{Dilsukhnagar, R/o. H.No.16-2-} T3SF\4, Lsmanghad, Malkpet, Hyderabad - 500036.

¶23

...'ET'TIONER PROPOSED RESPONDENT No.S

¶24

AND

¶25

Shri Shirdi Saibaba Sansthan Trust, P AND T^{Colony,Dilsukhnagar,} Hyderabad, Regd. No. 646/92, rep. by its Chairman^{Sri V. NarasimhaGupta}

¶26

...RESPONDENT,WRIT PETITIONER

¶27

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue^{(Endowments.ll) Department,} Secretarat, Hyderabad, rep. by its Principal Secretary.

¶28

The Conrmissioner, Endowments Department,^{Andhra Pradesh,} Boooulal<unta. Tilak Road. Hvderabad.

¶29

+. ThE-Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department,^Boggulakunta Tilak Road, Hyderabad.

¶30

The Assistant-Commissioner, Endowments Department,^{Boggulakunta Tilak} Road' Hvderabad'

¶31

...RE'''NDENTS/RE''.NDENTS

¶32

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} implead the p,:titioner as^proposed respondent No.S to the writ^{petitionNo.'|97 of} 2013 and also to all miscellaneous^petitions filed thereunder.

¶33

Counsel for ttre Petitioner: SRI ARVIND KUMAR KATA FOR SRI KRISHNA KISHORE KOWURI

¶34

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR ENDOMTENTS Counsel for the Proposed Respondenf SRI ANDAPALLI SANJEEV KUMAR

¶35

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶36

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶37

trtTrmni No.197 of 20t3

¶38

ORDER:

¶39

Heard sri Arvind Kumar Kata, learned counsel representing Sri Krishna Kishore Kovrruri, learned. counsel for the for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the oflicial respondents. Perused the material available on record.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition is filed seeking to declare the order bearing Memo No.35156/Endts.IllAl /2ot2 dated oz .L2.2ot2 passed by respondent No.1 in the Revision petition filed by the petitioner as illegal and arbitrar5r. consequently, seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the administration of the Sai Mandir, situated at Survey No.3 | /2 of Gaddiannarm, saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while admitting the matter, tlis court granted Interim stay of

I ,t I Ii

all fu::ther proceedings in pursuant to the order bearing Memc No.35156/Endts.IIlA1 l2or2 dated oz.L2.2or2 passe'1 by respondent No.1 in the Revision petition fired by the pr:titioner. In spite of lapse of more than twelve and half years, the respondent authorities did not choose to file a counter or a vacate petition denying the averments made by the petitioner in the writ affidavit. In view of the s€une, requested this court alrow the writ petition by settinl3 aside the impugned order bearing Memo No.35156/Endts.IIlAr /2012 dated o2.t2.2o12 issued by respondent No. 1.

¶46

4' on the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments submits that the petitioner_ Temple (shri Shirdi saibaba sansthan Trust, p and T colon'g) in not within the purview of trre Endowments Department and the same was not notified under section 6 of the Endowment Act , Lggz. In view of the s€une, reques;ted to pass appropriate orders.

¶47

5' In view of the submissions made on either side, this writ Petition is disposed of, by setting aside the impugned

¶48

¶49

¶50

order bearing Memo No.35156/Endts.IIlA1 /2012 dated o7.L2.2oL2 issued by respondent No.l in the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner. The respondents are directed not to interfere with the administration of t]:e petitioner-Temple (shri shirdi saibaba Sansthan Trust, p and r colony), without following due process of law. No order as to costs.

¶51

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

sD/ASSISTANT

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1 2 3 4 5. 6 7 8

¶58

PSK. PSK {k

¶59

;I I i I III I t I I i i I i ! i I .

HIGH COURT

DATED il111112025

ORDER

WP.No .197 of 2013

,'':'.:.
l'cr \ r.iii S
()
1 f- u1? )n)t
t *

¶65

DISPOSIhIG OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOU COSTS lt J-rcE 24L12-e

Shri Shirdi Saibaba Sansthan Trust, P and T Colony, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Shirdi Saibaba Sansthan Trust, P and T Colony, v. The Government 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

Smt R. Prameela , Premeela Vs The State of Telangana

G. Sathyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

M/s.The Co-Op. Tenant Farming Society Limited Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others

B.v.Ramana Murthy, Vs The State of Telangana

Kavali Krishna Yadav Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Guduri Kalpana Vs The State of Telangana