APHC010869132018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 42097/2018 Between: K.A. Anantha, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NARASIMHA MURTHY GOLLAMUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 42097/2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “…..to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the Proceedings of the 2nd respondent in D.Dis.No COE13025 43/2/2017 C SECEndowments dated 20.09.2018 as bad, illegal, unauthorized, arbitrary, opposed to law and contrary to the Statute and pass……” 2. Heard Sri Narasimha Murthy Gollamudi, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner who is no-way concerned with the temple claiming to be a devotee of the Temple challenging the action of the respondent-authorities in not considering the request of the respondent No.5 to accept his leave application, resignation and consequently relieve him from his duties and also consider his voluntary retirement. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the individual himself submitted three applications dated 04.04.2016, 12.04.2016 and 25.04.2016 for the grant of leave or for submitting his resignation and voluntarily retiring from services, he could not be continued by the respondent- authorities. The respondent-authorities have to consider his request. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that being a devotee, he has 3 every right to question the authority of the respondents in not considering the request of the respondent No.5. 5. The Petitioner could not place anything on record, any incident of sufferance due to alleged act of the respondent-authorities not considering the request of the respondent No.5. In that view, this Court does not see any public interest in this matter. In absence of any sufferance by the petitioner, the matter deserves dismissal. 6. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 25.06.2025 UPS 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.42097 of 2018 Dated.25.06.2025 UPS 56