Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18103 (AP)

Sayana Satyanarayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/22677/2016 · 2025-02-19

K Manmadha Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010250842016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22677/2016 Between: Sayana Satyanarayana, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KIRAN TIRUMALASETTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 2. ELEVATED AS JUDGE The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “… to issue an order or orders or direction or a writ one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the proceedings in Rc.No.B2/9272/15 dated 02.05.2016 wherein appointing the Respondent Nos.5 to 10 as Non Hereditary Trustees of the 11th respondent temple without following procedure contemplated under the Act as illegal, arbitrary violation of principles of natural justice and also contrary to the Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987 issued in G.O.Ms.No.258 Revenue Endowments-I, dated 31.03.1988 and consequently set aside the proceedings vide Rc.No. B2/9272/15 dated 02.05.2016 of the 3rd respondent and to pass…” 2. Heard Mr V.Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel representing on behalf of Mr Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents. 3. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the Writ Petition. Whereas, Smt Pulipati Radhika, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner is continuing as single trustee in the subject temple and in view of the same, no further orders are required to be passed in this Writ Petition and it may be closed. 4. Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date 19.02.2025 TM