Dismissed¶30

Gongalla Vishwanath and Another v. The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Telangana HC4 Mar 2025WP/5633/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana HC; Writ Petition 5633 of 2021; dismissed as infructuous; no costs; Endowments Department; appointment of Executive Officer; Sri Mallikariuna Swamy Temple, Ichoda Mandal, Adilabad; Proc. L.Dis.No. M16079/2020 dt. 31/10/2020; Article 226 Constitution of India; Section 151 CPC; IA Nos. 1 and 2 of 2021 closed; Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka; mandamus against Additional Commissioner Endowments.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed as infructuous with no costs. ¶30

Gongalla Vishwanath and Another Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; writ petition dismissed as infructuous with no costs.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondent No.2 in issuing Proc. L.Dis.No. M16079/2020 dt. 31/10/2020 appointing respondent No.4 as Executive Officer of respondent No.5's temple without following the contemplated procedure is illegal, arbitrary and unjust, and ought to be set aside.

¶19

Court's answer

When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the cause in the present writ petition does not survive for adjudication and has become infructuous, and in view thereof the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Special Original Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 5633 of 2021 — Gongalla Vishwanath and Triupthi Mailesham v. The State of Telangana (Endowments Department) and others; Hon'ble Sri Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of respondent No.2 (Additional Commissioner, Endowments) in issuing Proc. L.Dis.No. M16079/2020 dt. 31/10/2020 appointing respondent No.4 as Executive Officer of respondent No.5 (Sri Mallikariuna Swamy Temple, Sirichelma Village, Ichoda Mandal, Adilabad District) without following the contemplated procedure, prayed to be declared illegal, arbitrary and unjust and set aside; interim applications IA Nos. 1 and 2 of 2021 (Section 151 CPC) sought non-interference in the temple's day-to-day affairs/Mahashivratri festival and suspension of the Proc. When taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the cause did not survive for adjudication and had become infructuous; the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous with no costs and directed that miscellaneous applications pending, if any, stand closed.

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ I

¶2

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

¶3

TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENI,YFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA}

¶6

WRIT PET^{ITION NO: 56330F 2021}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gongalla^{vishwanath'-s/o:Late Somaia'} 49d^{?qcffi3f'^ffid;f,"H3'Lr:E} ' Miiiiiitr"-d-Swami rempte Sirichelma Village' I District. about 71 Years'

¶9

Triupthi Mailesham,^{S/o: Late Vishwanasth'} ^Aged lma vi[lage,^lchoda

¶10

' ci"ll"i*i#,--dii Marrirariuna Swamv Temple Siriche Mandal, Adilabad^District.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The State^{of Telangana, Rep. by its.Principal Secretary' Endowments} Department, Secretariat,^Hyderabad'

¶14

The Additional^{Commissioner, Officeof the Commissioner'Endowments} Department,^HYderabad.

¶15

The Assistant^{Commissioher, Endowments,Adilabad'}

¶16

The Executive officer,^{Sri Mallikariunaswamy Temple, sirichelmi ViHage'} lchoda Mandal, Adilabad^District'

¶17

s. Sri Mallikariuna^{SwamyTemple, Rep' by its Executive Officer'Sirichelma} Village, lchbda^{Mandai,Adilabad District'}

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article^{226 of the Constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances^{statea in the affidavitfiled therewith'the High Court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate^{Writ, Order or Direction' more particularlyone in} ihe nature- of^{Writ of Mandamus,declaringthe actionof the respondent No'2in} issuing the^{Procs.L.Dis.N o.Ml6O79t2O2O dl.3l1ot2o2o appointkrg the 4th} respondent^{herein as Executive Officer of the of the sth respondent temple without} following the^{procedure contemplated, as beinglllegal'arbitraryand unjustand} consequently^{set aside the same.}

¶20

lA NO: I OF 20r!

¶21

Petiticn unCr:r Section 1S1 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filr;d in support of the petition, the High Court may be lrlerased to direct the responcert No.2 to 5 herein not to interfere in the dsy.1s-62ry affairs of the temple or i, e n'7 nranner disturbing the occasion of Mahastrivat'i festivar at sri Mallikarjuna S',;rrrv Tempre, Siricherma Viflage, rchoda Mandar, Ariiiabad District, in the intere:it of jLrstice.

¶22

lA NO: 2 oF 2ct2l

¶23

Petitic'n urrr er Section 151 cpc praying that in the circrmstarrces stated in the affidavit filed lr support of the petition, the High Court .nay be pleased to suspend the F'ror;s. L.Dis.No. pf.r607gr2020 dt. 3t10r2020 ,ssur-,d by the 2nd respondent hereirr pending disposal of the main Writ petition.

¶24

Counsel for th(! l)otitioners: SRI GAJANAND CHAKRAVARTHI Counsel for ther fk:s;pondent Nos.l to 3: Gp FOR ENDOWMENTS counsel for ther Fl.spondent Nos.4 and 5: sRr vrJAy PRAKASH. sic

¶25

The Court mad,3 l:f,e following: ORDER

¶26

HON'BLE SRI^{JI,STICE NAGF^SHBHEEMAPAXA}

¶27

WRIT PETITIONNo^{.5633 of 2021}

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

When the matter^{has been taken up for} hearing, learned^{counsel for petitionerssubmitted that the} cause in the^{presentwrit petition does not survive for} adjudication^{and it has become infructuous'}

¶30