APHC010602322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 31258 OF 2025 Between: 1. SOMAYAJULA MALLIKARJUNA SARMA, S/O. VENKATA NARASAIAH, AGE 55 YEARS, OCC PUROHIT, R/O.D.NO.S-76, KONETI VEEDI, MARKAPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. SOMAYAJULA HARI PRASAD SARMA, S/O. ANJANEYULU, AGE 60 YEARS, OCC PUROHIT, R/O.D.NO.S-76, KONETI VEEDI, MARKAPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, RANGA RAYUDU CHERUVU, NEAR PVR SCHOOL, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT ENDOWMENT OFFICER, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE. 5. SRI LAKSHMI CHENNAKESAVA SWAMY TEMPLE, REP.BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MARKAPUR TOWN AND MANDAL 2 PRAKASAM DISTRICT 6. SRI APPANACHARY, S/O. NOT KNOWN, PRADANA ARCHAKA SRI LAKSHMI CHENNAKESAVASWAMYTEMPLE, MARKAPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 2. DEVI SUBHASHINI ANNE SC For Endowments 3. D V SASIDHAR The Court made the following order: Heard the submissions of Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Smt. Devi Subhashini Anne, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments appearing for respondent No.5 and Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for respondent No.6. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 6th respondent is interfering with the petitioners in performance of the rituals that are being performed by them in the 5th respondent-Temple. When the same was brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent through a representation by the petitioners, the 2nd respondent passed orders directing the Executive Officer of the 5th respondent-Temple to allow the petitioner’s family to conduct the rituals as was done earlier at the temple and further directed the Executive Officer to initiate disciplinary action against the 6th respondent. It is contended that 3 despite the said proceedings of the 2nd respondent, the 6th respondent has been interfering with the rituals/performance of which the petitioners alone are supposed and entitled to conduct at the 5th respondent-Temple. 3. Despite the said proceedings of the 2nd respondent, the Executive Officer has become a mute spectator and the inaction of the Executive Officer, the 6th respondent is being encouraged to continue to do unauthorized activities in the temple and interfere with the petitioners’ activities. In this regard, due to the non-implementation of the orders of the 2nd respondent, the petitioners have submitted another representation dated 08.09.2025 before the 2nd respondent. 4. The 5th respondent filed a counter-affidavit. Inter-alia, stating that the Executive Officer had requested the petitioners to attend to their duties as per the orders of the 2nd respondent and the disciplinary proceedings have also been initiated against the 6th respondent. 5. Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the 6th respondent submits that pursuant to the directions of the Commissioner, a show-cause notice dated 25.11.2025 was issued to the 6th respondent calling for an explanation as to why the disciplinary action should not be taken against him, further indicating that failing to submit the explanation as called for necessary action would be taken in terms of G.O.Ms.No.830 dated 18.08.1989. 6. Considered the submissions. Having regard to the submissions made and in view of the directions issued by the Commissioner to take disciplinary 4 action and a direction to the Executive Officer to allow the petitioners to render their services to the deity. The Executive Officer, being under an obligation to implement the orders issued by the 2nd respondent and being the officer-in- charge of the temple activities, should have taken all necessary steps to ensure that the rituals to the deity of the temple are conducted in the manner it has to be conducted in accordance with the Agamas. 7. Be that as it may, since the petitioners have made a detailed representation to the 2nd respondent, stating that they are unable to perform the rituals that they are supposed to conduct at the subject temple, the 2nd respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the said representation dated 08.09.2025 submitted by the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to ensure that the rituals to the deity are performed in accordance with the shastras and the customs that are being followed all the while. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 03.12.2025 BSK 5 26 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 31258/2025 Date: 03.12.2025 BSK