APHC010548352016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 35831/2016 Between: 1. B. VIJAYSARADHI,, S/O. LATE. B.V. KRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC:SENIOR ASSISTANT IN SREEKALAHASTHEESWARA SWAMY DEVASTHANAM, SRIKALAHASTHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP: BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE (ENDOWMENTS) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. 3. SREEKALAHASTHEESWARA SWAMY DEVASTHANAM, SRIKALAHASTHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER 4. SRI VARASIDDI VINAYAKA SWAMY DEVASTHANAM, KANIPAKAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V S K RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 2. VENU GOPAL (SC FOR ENDOW RS) 2 MRK,J W.P.No.35831 of 2016 The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings in L.Dis.No.C1/21257/2016, dt:28-09-2016 and proceedings in Rc.No.C1/14378/2016-4, dt:22-06-2016 pertaining to petitioner issued by the respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust, made without application of mind, against the principles of natural justice, prejudicial and violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same so as to enable the petitioner to work in the respondent No.3 institution....” 2. On 25.09.2025, this Court passed the following order: “No representation for the petitioner. Sri Venugopal, the learned Standing Counsel for Endowments for respondent Nos.3 and 4 temples submits that the petitioner presently working as Superintendent in 3rd respondent temple. Accordingly, the cause in the writ petition does not survive. In order to give one more opportunity, post on 26.09.2025 under the caption „for dismissal‟. 3. Today also, none appeared for the petitioner. 4. Per contra, Sri Venugopal, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 - Temples, reiterated the submissions that the petitioner is presently working as Superintendent in 3rd respondent temple. 3 MRK,J W.P.No.35831 of 2016 5. Recording the above said submission coupled with the fact that there is no representation for the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 26.09.2025 Ivd 4 MRK,J W.P.No.35831 of 2016 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.35831 of 2016 Date: 26.09.2025 Ivd