APHC010343942025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY.THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 17403 OF 2025 Between: 1. Agile Security Force Pvt. Ltd., #3^^ Floor, Uma Enclave, Road No. 9 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034 Represented by its Authorized Signatory Mr. Siddhartha Bobba 2. Vemuri Amarnath, Shareholder C/o. Agile Security Force Pvt. Ltd. Floor, Uma Enclave, Road No. 9 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034 3rd ...PETITIONERS AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Amaravathi. 2. Endowments Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Through the Commissioner. 3. The Executive Officer, Sri Varaha Lakshmi Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District 4. The Executive Officer, Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Temple, Annavaram, Kakinada District. 5. The Executive Officer, Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple Tirumala, Eluru District 6. The Executive Officer, Devasthanam Vijayawada, NTR District Narasimha Swamy Dwaraka Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla The Executive Officer, Srikalahasti, Tirupati District 8. The Executive Officer, Sri Swayambu Sri Kalahasteeswara Swamy Devasthanam Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy Kanipakam M, Irala (M)Devasthanam, Chittoor District 9. The Executive Officer. Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Vari Devasthanam Srisailam, Nandyal District ...Respondents Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied therewith, the High Court pieased to pass an order or direction particuiariy one Mandamus declaring the action of the may be in the nature of a Writ of Respondent No. 2 in disqualifying the Petitioner No. 1 Company, without attributing the Petitioner satisfies ail the tender any reasons whatsoever though conditions, in the tender dated June 26, Notice vide No 1/ Security services / 2025 in e-Procurement Tender ENDOW/SECURiTY 2025 26, Dt. /05/2025, for provision of Security guards and Security supervisors to Seven (7) Joint Officer Commissioner cadre Executive Temples i.e.. 1) Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy District 2) Sri Veera Venkata Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam Satyanarayana Swamy Temple, Annavaram, Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Dwaraka Tirumala Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam Kakinada District 3 ) Sri Eluru District 4) Sri Durga , Vijayawada, NTR District 5) Sri Srikalahasti, Tirupati District 6) Sri Kanipakam M, Irala (M) Kalahasteeswara Swamy Devasthanam Swayambu Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Devasthanam, Chittoor District and 7) Sri Vari Devasthanam, Srisailam, violative of the principles of natural Rights guaranteed under the Constitution the Respondent No. 2 to Swamy, Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Nandyal District as malafide, arbitrary, illegal. justice, violative of the Fundamental of India, and consequently direct consider the Petitioner No. 1 Company for the financial bid opening. / 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 Respondent No. 2 not to finalise the Financial Bids and/or issue a letter of intent in relation to e-Procurement Tender Notice vide No.1/ Security services / ENDOW/SECURITY/ /2025-26, Dt. /05/2025, for provision of Security guards and Security supervisors to Seven (7) Joint Commissioner cadre Executive Officer Temples i.e., 1) Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam Visakhapatnam District; 2) Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Temple, Annavaram, Kakinada District; 3 ) Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Dwaraka Tirumala, Eluru District; 4) Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Vijayawada, NTR District; 5) Sri Kalahasteeswara Swamy Devasthanam, Srikalahasti, Tirupati District; 6) Sri Swayambu Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy, Kanipakam M, Irala (M) Devasthanam, Chittoor District; and 7) Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Srisailam, Nandyal District for a period of Two Years, issued by Respondent No. 2. pending disposal of the Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 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 Respondent Nos. 3 to 9 not to enter into agreement in relation to Tender Notice vide No.: 1/ Security services / ENDOW/SECURITY/ /2025-26, Dt. /05/2025, for provision of Security guards and Security supervisors to Seven (7) Joint Commissioner cadre Executive Officer Temples i.e., 1) Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam Visakhapatnam District; 2) Sri Veera Venkata Simhachalam, Satyanarayana Swamy Temple, Annavaram, Kakinada District; 3 ) Sri enkateswara Swamy Temple, Dwaraka Tirumala, Eluru District; 4) Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Vijayawada, NTR District; 5) Sri Kalahasteeswara Swamy Devasthanam, Srikalahasti Tirupati District; 6) Sri Swayambu Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy, Kanipakam M Irala (M) Devasthanam, Chittoor District' and 7) Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Srisailam Nandyal District for a period of Two Years, issued by Respondent No. 2 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI C.V. MOHAN REDDY, Sr. Counsel for SRI C. SUMON Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Counsel for the Respondents No.3: Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & SMT. S. PRANATHI, SPL. G.P SRI CHINTAPALLI SRINIVAS 6:SRI K. KOTESWARA RAO SC for ENDOWMENTS M/s. PULIPATI RADHIKA, SC FOR ENDOWMENTS to 9: SRI T. VEND GOPAL, SC FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.5: Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010343942025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 17403/2025 Between: 1.AGILE SECURITY FORCE PVT LTD, 3RD FLOOR, UMA ENCLAVE, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD 500 034 ROAD NO. 9 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SIDDHARTHA BOBBA VEMURI AMARNATH, MR. C/0. AGILE SECURITY SHAREHOLDER 3RD FLOOR, UMA ENCLAVE, ROAD NO. 9 2.VEMURI AMARNATH FORCE PVT. LTD. BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500 034 11 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI. 2. ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER. 3.THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI VARAHA LAKSHMI NARAS^MHA SIMHACHALAM, VISAKHAPATNAM SWAMY DEVASTHANAM DISTRICT 4.THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI VENKATESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE, DWARAKA TIRUMALA ELURU DISTRICT 5.THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI VENKATESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE, DWARAKA TIRUMALA ELURU DISTRICT 6.THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI DURGA MALLESWARA SWAMY VARLA DEVASTHANAM VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT 7.THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI KALAHASTEESWARA SWAMY DEVASTHANAM SRIKALAHASTI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT 8.SRI SWAYAMBU SRI VARASIDDI VINAYAKA SWAMY, KANIPAKAM M, IRALA (M)DEVASTHANAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 9.THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI E.HRAMARAMBA MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY VARI DEVASTHANAM SRISAILAM, NANDYAL DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 tomay be pleased to pass an order or direction particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 in disqualifying the Petitioner No. 1 Company, without attributing any whatsoever though the Petitioner satisfies ail the tender conditions, in the tender dated June 26, 2025 in e-Procurement Tender Notice vide No 1/ Security services / ENDOW/SECURITY 2025 26, Dt. /05/2025, for of Security guards and Security supervisors to Seven (7) Joint Commissioner cadre Executive Officer Temples i.e., 1) Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District 2) Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Temple, Annavaram, Kakinada District 3 ) Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Dwaraka Tirumala, Eluru District 4) Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Vijayawada, NTR District 5) Sri Kalahasteeswara Swamy Devasthanam, Srikalahasti, Tirupati District 6) Sri Swayambu Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy, Kanipakam M, Irala (M) Devasthanam, Chittoor District and 7) Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Srisailam, Nandyal District as malafide, arbitrary, illegal, violative of the principles of natural justice, violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondent No. 2 to consider the Petitioner No. 1 Company for the financial bid opening and pass such 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 may be pleased to direct Respondent No. 2 not to finalise the the Financial reasons provision Bids and/or issue a letter of intent in relation to e-Procurement Tender Notice / endow/security//2025-26, Dt. /05/2025, vide No.; 1/ Security services . for provision of Security guards and Security supervisors to Seven (7) Joint Commissioner cadre Executive Officer Temples i.e., 1) Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam Visakhapatnam District; 2) Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Temple, Annavaram, Kakinada District; 3 ) Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Dwaraka Tirumala, Eluru Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Vijayawada, Kalahasteeswara Swamy Devasthanam, Srikalahasti, District; 4) Sri Durga NTR District; 5) Sri . Tirupati District; 6) Sri Swayambu Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy, Kanipakam M, Irala (M) Devasthanam, Chittoor District; and 7) Sri Bhramaramba Vari Devasthanam, Srisailam, Nandyal District for a issued by Respondent No. 2. pending disposal of the Mallikarjuna Swamy period of Two Years Writ Petition and pass such lA NO: 2 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 may be pleased direct Respondent Nos. 3 to 9 not to enter into agreement in relation to Tender Notice vide No.'. 1/ Security services / ENDOW/SECURITY/ /2025-26 Dt. /05/2025, for provision of Security guards and Security supervisors to Seven (7) Joint Commissioner cadre Executive Officer Temples i.e., 1) Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District; 2) Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Temple, Annavaram, Kakinada District; 3 ) Sri enkateswara Swamy Temple, Dwaraka Tirumala, Eluru District; 4) Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Vijayawada, NTR District; 5) Sri Kalahasteeswara Swamy Devasthanam, Srikalahasti Tirupati District; 6) Sri Swayambu Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy, Kanipakam M, Irala (M) Devasthanam, Chittoor District; and 7) Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Srisailam Nandyal District for a period of Two Years, issued by Respondent No. 2, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass such lA NO: 3 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 Pleased to allow the implead application filed by the petitioner herein and to implead the implead petitioner herein as the Respondent No. 10 in writ /r* petrtioninW.P. No. 17403 of 2025 'n the ,n,erestsofjos«ce and pass !ANQ2±of 2025 and its iinterlocutory applications petitions Petition under Section in the affidavit filed i be pleased to with the bid tn support ofX^pSn®,heSh cfrt™"""“® as addr:: ™.er:r - ef,rtesa.ew.,e ^^tud,ca«n„rte a^o: and Counsel for the Petitione 1C SUMON Counsel for the r(S): Respondent(S); 1.CHINTAPALLI SRINIVAS 2. kappera KOTESWARA 3.GP for general 4PULIPATIRADHIKA RAO SC for Endowments,AP Region administration 5 GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following; ORDER; Heard Sri C.V. Mohan behalf of Sri Ms. S. Pranathi, respondent Nos.1 & 2. Redddy, learned Senior counsel for the Government Pleader Counsel appearing on petitioners C. Sumon, learned and 'earned Special appearing for the 2. The grievance of petitioners is against the action of the company in the tender respondents in disqualifying the petitioner - 26.06.2025 Without assigning any reasons. dated 5 3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing security services, house-keeping and sanitation services to government and non government agencies. The 2'^'^ respondent called for tenders vide tender notice dated .05.2025, for providing the services of security guards and security supervisors to the temples of the category, where the Joint Commissioners of Endowments are Executive Officers viz., Simhachalam devasthanam, Annavaram devasthanam, Kanipakam devasthanam, Sri St Kalahasthi, Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy devasthanam, etc. The 1 petitioner company participated in the tender process, submitted its bid on 30.06.2025. Technical evaluation of the tender was completed on 04.07.2025, and the financial bids were opened on the same day. The petitioner’s bid was disqualified in technical evaluation and the bids of M/s. Sri Karthikeya Security Services, M/s. Seva Supreme Detective and M/s. Security Services Private Limited and Meta Force Private Limited, were declared qualified. It is contended that while disqualifying the petitioner, no reasons have been assigned. Alleging malafide and arbitrary action, the instant Writ Petition has been filed. It is further contended that after filing of the Writ Petition, the 4. petitioner has received an email dated 14.07.2025, informing the petitioner that the tender document submitted by the petitioner was examined and the same was rejected for the reasons stated in the said email. The reasons stated are;- 6 1. Though the Tenderer has furnished several certificates of license of establishment obtained from Labour Department, Government of A.P. for 1588 service personnel in total, certificates for 378 personnel are only in force and valid. The certificates for rest of service personnel are expired well before the date of submission of tender and thus invalid. service 2. The tenderer has furnished ESI registration certificate and ESI payment receipts from April, 2021 to July, 2021 (for four months only), where as he has to submit such receipts for a minimum period of 3 years, as per Tender conditions. 5. The learned Senior Counsel Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, appearing for learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that as per the tender condition(s) to show the past experience, one should have had provided at least 1000 security personnel in any of the three years, during the last five years i.e., 2021-22, 22-23, 23-24. The other bid condition is that the tenderer should have valid registration with the labour department for providing minimum of 500 security personnel. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the Exhibits filed along with the additional affidavit submits that the petitioner has more than 600 valid registrations with the labour department, therefore the petitioner is very much qualified to bid for the subject contract. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason recorded by the respondents while rejecting the tender document of the petitioner was that the petitioner did not show/establish that it has valid registration from the labour department with 1000 security personnel. The learned counsel further argues that the said condition is mentioned in the 7 % checklist, whereas the tender conditions would stipulate only 500 personnel. The requirement of 1000 personnel is only to meet the requirement of having the experience during the last four years. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others^. The learned Special Government Pleader Ms. S. Pranathi, appearing for the respondents would submit that the respondents are not pressing the objection raised regarding requirement compliances of ESI 7. qualification, as far as the petitioners’ case is concerned. The only other eligibility condition would be, meeting the requirement of having the valid registration with labour department for 500 personnel. The learned Special Government Pleader argues that the petitioner does not have the required registration with the labour department for 1000 personnel as specified under the checklist. She further submits that even if the said condition is restricted to 500 personnel as specified under tender condition No.(e), the petitioner would still be short of around 120 personnel. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner instead of showing registration with the state labour department has shown the registration that it has with the government of India and few of certifications are obtained from the licensing officers located at Hyderabad and some of the certifications are for providing security ^ 1977 see Online Se 323 8 services. In view of the same, the bid document of petitioner had rightly been rejected. The learned Special Government Pleader further submits that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 cannot be invoked except in exceptional circumstances and the scope of judicial review in tender matters should only be under exceptional circumstances such as arbitrariness, malafide actions, lack of jurisdiction etc., is made out and the decision taken is perverse. 8. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents relies on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following cases:- 1 AFCONS Infrastructure Limited Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited & another, ^ wherein it is observed as under: “11. Recently, in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL- SML (Joint Venture Consortium) it was held by this Court, relying on a host of decisions that the decision making process of the employer or owner of the project in accepting or rejecting the bid of a tenderer should not be interfered with. Interference is permissible only if the decision making process is mala fide or is intended to favour someone. Similarly, the decision should not be interfered with unless the decision is so arbitrary or irrational that the Court could say that the decision is one which no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with law could have reached. In other words, the decision making process or the decision should be perverse and not merely faulty or incorrect or ^ (2016) 16 Supreme Court Cases 818 % 9 made out by GYT- erroneous. No such extreme case was TPL JV in the High Court or before us. 2. Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs. Union of India and another,^ wherein it is observed as under; of the law laid down in the Judgments refen-ed to above is the exercise of restraint and caution: the need for overwhelming public to justify judicial intervention In matters of contract instrumentalities; the courts should The essence 20. interest involving the state to the opinion of the experts unless the decision unreasonable; the court does not sit give way is totally arbitrary or court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the realise that the authority floating the tender is like a court must the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the should be minimal. The authority court’s Interference which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the to be interpreted. If two interpretations documents have are possible accepted. The arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal with the present then the interpretation of the author must be courts will only interfere to prevent case. of Galaxy Transport Traders, Transports and 3. And the decision in the case Agencies, Suppliers Vs. New J.K. Roadways, Fleet Owners and Transport Contractors and Others'^. Contractors, Considered the rival submissions. 9. ^ (2020) 16 Supreme Court Cases 489 (2021) 16 Supreme Court Cases 808 10 10. The first reason assigned by the respondents for rejection of the not have appropriate authority for providing Security bid of the petitioner i IS on account of the fact that the petitioner did the valid registration with the personnel. From the record, the comprehension of the bid conditions i document specifies that department for providing security said reason appears to be beyond the m as much as Clause (e) of the tender one should have valid registration with the labour services of 500 personnel only. The no where been mentioned in the tender same appears to have been from the document, which specifies for having stipulation of 1000 personnel has conditions. However, the basis for the check list annexed to the tender registration with 1000 personnel. The basing on the checklist is unfounded. Even if the reasons recorded by the respondents same is construed as part of bid document as argued by the learned Special Government Pleader, same will not prevail over the tender the conditions, on the other hand, in case conditions of the tender would of any discrepancy, only the substantial prevail. To maintain the said contention, on the checklist is misconceived and unfounded. Inasmuch only an index for the documents to be reliance placed by the respondents as a checklist annexed. The same can never be In other words, the checklist construed as a bid condition. should be reflection of the tender conditions, it cannot alter from the there is any such deviation, the same. Even if same would be construed as a clerical error a condition precedent to prevail and cannot be read as over the main % 11 conditions of the tender document. Having regard to the same, the contention of the respondents on the said issue is not sustainable. 11. Coming to the 2 Government Pleader that, which specifies for only 500 personnel to be acceptable, the petitioner did not nd submission of the learned Special even if the conditions of the tender document as on the relevant date is considered even fulfill the said condition, the said contention does not appear to be sustainable, in the light of the certification issued by the labour department of the authority of the government of India. It i state government and licensing IS on account of the fact that the licensing authority is the government of India, Ministry of Commerce Industry, it is argued that the registration, is misconceived. It i and same shall not be considered as valid IS to be noted that the contract is for supply of security services the requisite eligibility is registration with the labour department for not less than 500 personnel. The distinction sought to be made by the respondents between state department and central department IS unreasonable. A perusal of the additional material that the petitioner has obtained papers would reflect registration for supplying services to the . In such cases. units located at Special Economic Zone of Visakhapatnam the appropriate licensing authority in SEZ areas would be the government of India. Therefore in my considered view, the said registration cannot be excluded as an invalid one. In any event, the recording of subsequent to the rejection of the bid of the reasons were petitioner and the basis for the 12 reasoning was that one should have 1000 personnel is also not an condition does not provide for such process smacks of arbitrariness and experience of supplying security of appropriate proposition since the tender a stipulation. Thus the decision making unreasonableness. b) The 2nd reason assigned for rejection of the bid furnished ESI registration certificate was that the tenderer has and ESI payment receipts for four as submitted by the learned same, it reflects that the respondents rejecting it, thereby rendering months alone, although has been withdrawn counsel for the respondents. From the have not verified the documents properly while the decision making process perverse. 12. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that on the basis of the material before the way of the two reasons perverse. Having regard to the fact that at respondents, the conclusions drawn by can be said to be not only arbitrary and the same are one time the respondents have said that the petitioner has only submitted receipts for payment of ESI for four months, later on the said claim has been Hon’ble Apex Court in the case relied withdrawn. As held by the upon by the learned Special Government Pleader in the case of Silppi Constructions Contractors t/s. Union of India and another, referred supra going by the very same principle, once arbitrariness is pointed out or made out from the case, it is required that the Courts should intervene to protect the rights of the individuals. \ • 13 V. In view of the foregoing and for all the reasons mentioned this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition and 13. above, remand the matter to the respondents for evaluation of technical bid, after taking into consideration the unexpired registrations, for providing security personnel, that the petitioner has with the Licensing Authorities of labour department of the state government as well the Government of India. Thus in the said exercise, if the petitioner qualifies in the technical evaluation, the respondents are directed to open the financial bid of the petitioner and then finalize the bids in accordance with law. Till such time, no orders shall be passed to finalize the bids that have already been opened. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no 14. order as costs. sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand As a closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Secretariat, 1. The Chief Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagaoudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada. 3. The Executive Officer, Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District 4. The Executive Officer, Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Temple, Annavaram, Kakinada District 5. The Executive Officer, Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Dwaraka Tirumala Eluru District 6. The Executive Officer, Devasthanam Vijayawada, NTR District 7. The Executive Officer, Sri Kalahasteeswara Swamy Devasthanam Srikalahasti, Tirupati District 8. Sri Swayambu Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy, Kanipakam (M)Devasthanam, Chittoor District 9. The Executive Officer, Sri E.hramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam Srisailam, Nandyal District 10. One CC to Sri C. Sumon, Advocate [OPUC] 11. One CC to Sri Chintapalli Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] 12. One CC to Sri Kappera Koteswara Rao, SC for Endowments[OPUC] 13. One CC to M/s. Pulipati Radhika, SC for Endowments [OPUC] 14. One CC to Sri T. Venu Gopal, SC for Endowments[OPUC] 15. Two CCS to GP for General Administration, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 16. Two CCs to GP for Endowments, High Court of Andhra [OUT] 17. Two cc’s to Smt. S. Pranathi, Spl. GP, High Court of A.P.[OUT] 18. Two CD Copies. Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla M, Irala Vari Pradesh ssb HIGH COURT DATED:21/07/2025 ORDER WP No.17403 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS