IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY .THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 14176 OF 2025 Between: M/s. Sri Gokulananda Agency, Rep. by its Managing Director, P.Srinivasulu Reddy S/o. P.Jagannadham Reddy Aged 35 years, Occ Business, R/o. D.No.2-43, Kandulavaripalli, Seshapuram, Chandragiri, Chittoor District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirumala, Tirupati District. 2. The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Tirumala, Tirupati District. 3. The Additional Executive Officer, Tirujnala Tirupati Devasthanams Tirumala, Tirupati District. j 4. The Deputy Executive Officer (P and R), Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirumala, Tirupati District. 5. The Assistant Executive Officer (P and R), Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirumala, Tirupati District. 6. The Health Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Tirumala, Tirupati' District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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 WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in passing the impugned order in Roc.No.TTD-81021(31)/118/2 019- REV1 TM,L dt.30.05.2025 cancelling the license of petitioner’s dairy parlor and to take over the vacant possession, as illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and Article 14 ’^9('I){9). 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India consequentially set- aside the same and direct the respondents herein not to interfere with the petitioner’s Dairy Parlor situated at Near CRO Office, Opposite to PNB ATM, 2nd NC, Tirumala, Tirupati District. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct respondents herein not to interfere with the petitioner’s Dairy Parlor situated at Near CRO Office, Oppostie to PNB ATM, 2 nd NC, Tirumala, Tirupati District, by suspending the impugned Roc.No.TTD-81021(31)/11/2019-REV1 order in TML, Dt.30.05.2025 pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. V VINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. V.Dyumani, Standing Counsel for T.T.D. The Court made the following Order: I 1 APHC010280962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 14176/2025 Between: Sri Gokulananda Agency ...PETITIONER AND The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams and Others ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VVINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: ORDER; This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “ to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No. 3 in passing the impugned order in Roc. No. TTD8102131/118/2019REV 1 TML dated 30.05.2025 cancelling the license of petitioners dairy parlor and to take over the vacant possession as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and Article 14,19(1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India consequentially 2 setaside the same and direct the respondents herein not to interfere with the petitioners Dairy Parlor situated at Near CRO Office Opposite to PNB ATM 2nd NO Tirumala Tirupati District and pass orders...” Heard Sri V.Vinod K. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. 2. V.Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The Writ Petition is directed against the order of the 1®' respondent dated 30.05.2025 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that the same is not in accordance with the directions of this Court in W.P.No.28002 of 2024. It is contended that the license was granted vide Proceedings dated 04.11.2019. The license was valid up to 11.11.2025. However, since the respondent No.1 has issued proceedings for cancelling the petitioner’s license on 25.11.2024, the said proceedings were challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No.28002 of 2024. Those proceedings were challenged on the ground that the petitioner was never put on notice nor any reasons were assigned for the said cancellation. The said Writ Petition was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Board within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of the order. After receipt of the order passed in the Writ Petition, it is contended that the petitioner has preferred an appeal within time before the Board on 05.04.2025. However, the Board has dismissed the appeal stating that the appeal filed by the petitioner is not within time granted by this Court in W.P.No.28002 of 2024. 3. Sri V.Vinod K Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that there is no delay in filing the appeal. After receipt of the order which was dispatched on 24.03.2025, thereafter within two (2) weeks from thereon, the petitioner has filed the appeal on 05.04.2025. Thus, argues that there is no delay in filing the appeal. Therefore prays for setting aside the impugned Order and for direction to the Board to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner. 5. Per contra, Ms. V.Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for T.T.D., would submit that the copy of the order has been uploaded in the High Court Website. Having regard to the same, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not received the copy of the order. If the petitioner was diligent enough, it could have downloaded the copy of the order from the website end filed necessary appeal as directed by this Court. 6. Considered the rival submissions. Since the physical copy of the order passed by this Court, appears to have been dispatched on 24.03.2025, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order in the Writ Petition and remit the matter to the 1®* respondent. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent for passing appropriate orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner on 05.04.2025 in accordance with law affording an opportunity of hearing for the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 4. 4 8. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. Sd/- G.HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTER //TRUE COPY// SECtrON OFFICER To, 1. The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirumala, Tirupati District. 2. The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Tirumala, Tirupati District. 3. The Additional Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Tirumala, Tirupati District. 4. The Deputy Executive Officer (P and R), Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirumala, Tirupati District. 5 7he Assistant Executive Officer (P and R), Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirumala, Tirupati District. 6. The Health Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Tirumala, Tirupati District. 7. One CC to Sri. V Vinod K , Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Ms. V. Dyumani, Standing Counsel for T.T.D. [OPUC] 9. Three CD Copies vna HIGH COURT DATED:05/06/2025 X V n JUN w:^ B ^ . Current Secuon ^ ORDER WP.No.14176 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS