1 APHC010283402025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] TUESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 14275/2025 AND I.A.No.1 & 2 of 2025 in WRIT PETITION NO:2398 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO: 14275/2025 Between: 1. RACHAKONDA KOTESWARA RAO, S/O LATE VENKATARATNAM, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. RACHAKONDA AJAYKUMAR,, S/O LATE VENKATARATNAM, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O MANGALAGIRI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. RACHAKONDA SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O VENKATA RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP., BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE MANGALAGIRITADEPALLIMUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP., BY ITS COMMISSION, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI LAKSHMINARASIMHA SWAMY 2 TEMPLE, MANGALAGIRI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR 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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent Municipal Corporation in illegally trespassing and trying to dispossess the petitioners from the lands admeasuring an extent of Ac.6.57 cents in Sy. No. 271/A-1, A2 and in Sy. No. 271/C-1A situated at Nidamarru Road, Mangalagiri Town, Guntur District belonging to the 4th respondent temple and the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide D.Dis.No.M2/COE-19021(39)/4/2019, dated 28.5.2025 as arbitrary, illegal, null and void, against the Norms of Public Policy and Principles of Natural Justice and to set aside the proceedings dated 28.5.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent and to issue a consequential direction directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without following due process of law and to pass IA 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 pleased to direct the 3rd respondent municipal corporation not to dispossess the petitioners from the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.6.57 cents in Sy. No. 271/A-1, A2 and in Sy. No. 271/A-1, A2 and in Sy. No. 271/C-1A situated at Nidamarru Road, Mangalagiri Town, Guntur District belonging to the 4th respondent temple by suspending the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide D.Dis.No.M2/COE-19021(39)/4/2019, dated 28.5.2025, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA 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 to vacate the interim order dated 19.06.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in WP.NO.14275 of 2025, and dismiss the main writ petition as devoid of merits and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2025 3 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 vacate the interim order passd on 19.06.2025 in W.P.No.14275 of 2025 and pass IA NO: 4 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 grant leave to the petitioners in the above writ petition to file the reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent and to pass IA NO: 5 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 amend the main prayer in the above writ petition as follows The Honble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent Municipal Corporation in illegally trespassing and trying to dispossess the petitioners from the lands admeasuring an extent of Ac 6 57 cents in Sy No 271/A1, A2 and in Sy No 271/C1A situated at Nidamarru Road, Mangalagiri Town, Guntur District belonging to the 4rt respondent temple and the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide D Dis No M2/COE1902139/4/2019, dated 28 5 2025 and vide Rc No M2/19021 32/12/2025, dated 04 06 2025 and the 4 Respondent leasing the premises in favour of the Respondent Corporation, as arbitrary, illegal, null and void, against the Norms of Public Policy and Principles of Natural Justice and to set aside the proceedings dated 28 5 2025 and dated 04 06 2025 issued by the 2 respondent and to issue a consequential direction directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without following due process of law and to pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deemed fit and proper the circumstances of the case instead of The Honble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent Municipal Corporation in illegally trespassing and trying to dispossess the petitioners from the lands admeasuring an extent of Ac 6 57 cents in Sy No 271/A1, A2 and in Sy No 271/C1A situated at Nidamarru Road, Mangalagiri Town, Guntur District belonging to the 4rt respondent temple and the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide D Dis No 4 M2/COE190213974/2019, dated 28 5 2025 as arbitrary, illegal, null and void, against the Norms of Public Policy and Principles of Natural Justice and to set aside the proceedings dated 28 5 2025 issued by the 2nd respondent and to issue a consequential direction directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without following due process of law and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VENKAT SAILENDRA G Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KAPPERA KOTESWARA RAO SC for Endowments, AP Region. 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 3. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS WRIT PETITION NO: 2398/2006 Between: 1. SMT. RACHAKONDA RATTAMMA, GUNTUR DISTRICT & 3 OTHERS, W/O. LATE VENKATARATNAM, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. RACHAKONDA KOTESWARARAO,, S/O. LATE VENKATARATNAM, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. RACHAKONDA AJAYKUMAR,, S/O. LATE VENKATARATNAM, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. SMT. RACHAKONDA HYMAVATHI,, W/O. SAMBASIVARAO, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS HYD 2 OTHERS, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF A.P. BOGGULAKUNTA, ABIDS, HYDERABAD. 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI LAKSHMINARASIMHA SWAMY TEMPLE, MANGALAGIRI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5 3. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR 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 toto issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not complying the provisions of Sub Rule 1 of Rule 6 of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment lease of Agricultural Lands Rules 2003 r/w with the provisions of Sub Sec. 271/A-1A belongs to Sri Lakshminarasimha Swamy Temple Situated at Mangalagiri Village & Mandal, Guntur District; as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Art 14 of the Constitution of India; and consequentially declare that the petitioners are entitled for transfer of the lands in their occupation forthwith; and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case IA NO: 1 OF 2006(WPMP 2899 OF 2006 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 the 2nd respondent not to evict the petitioners from the lands in D.No. 271/A-1A admeasuring Ac. 1.64 cents each situated at Mangalagiri Village & Mandal, Guntur District; pending disposal of the main writ petition; and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2007(WVMP 2043 OF 2007 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 vacate the interim orders in WPMP.No.2890 of 2006 in WP.No.2398 of 2006 dated 22.1.2007 and pass IA NO: 4 OF 2018 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 set-aside the dismissal order dated 27.02.2018 and to restore the writ petition and WPMP 2899/2006 by granting interim order passed in the above writ petition in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 6 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 direct the Registry to post the WP No. 2398 of 2006 under the caption “for being mentioned” and to pass IA 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 pleased to review the order dated 31.12.2024 passed in W.P No. 2398 of 2006 and to pass. IA 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 dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the order dated 31.12.2024 passed in WP No. 2398 of 2006 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI 2. - Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N INDRANI 2. PADMAVATHI PADNAVIS 3. K MADHAVA REDDY 4. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 5. ELEVATED AS JUDGE The Court made the following: 7 WRIT PETITION NO:14275/2025 AND I.A.No.1 & 2 of 2025 in WRIT PETITION NO:2398 OF 2006 COMMON ORDER:- Heard Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel appearing for Sri G. Venkat Sailendra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2; Sri V. Venugopal Rao, Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4. 2. The instant Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the petitioner's claim for grant of lease of the subject property. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the case are: The subject temple owns an extent of 8.45 acres of land at Sy.No.271/C-1A and 271/A-1A, Mangalagiri Town. Out of which an extent of Ac-1.88 acres was acquired by the Railways for the railway track. The remaining extent of land was cultivated by the petitioner's father during his lifetime. He died in 1986. During his lifetime, the temple authorities initiated proceedings against the petitioner‟s father for eviction and filed a case in A.T.C.No.171 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the Special Officer, Mangalagiri, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act. The Court of Special Officer passed an order on 15-03-1993, dismissing the 8 temple's application. Aggrieved thereby, the temple filed an appeal in A.T.A.No.44 of 1993 before the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal, Guntur. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal. Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed a revision before this Court in C.R.P.No.651 of 1998. In the said revision, the Appellate Tribunal's order was set aside. On For Being Mentioned application being made, this Court passed the following order: “In such view of the matter, the rents payable by the petitioners-tenants to the temple is now fixed at Rs. 4000-00 (Rs. Four thousand) per year from March, 2000, on wards. It is also submitted that the petitioners have raised grass in the lands and they may be permitted to raise crops. There cannot be any objection whatsoever for raising the crops by the petitioners-tenants, which are not prohibited under law.” 4. In 2003, the temple authorities issued proceedings, directing the petitioners and their mother to hand over the temple's lands. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, vide proceedings dated 12-02-2004, recognized the petitioners as landless poor persons. In pursuance thereof, the Executive Officer of the Temple issued proceedings dated 11-10-2004 in Form-II under Rule 5(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003, giving the petitioners herein an option to purchase the land on payment of the cost of the land. The petitioners contend that they have expressed their willingness to purchase the land, but the respondents have not issued any proceedings in consequence of the 9 Form II. Thus, the petitioners made representations to the respondents on 08-11-2004 and 04-04-2005. 5. As there was no response from the respondents, the petitioners and their mother filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.2398 of 2006, seeking a direction to the respondents to transfer the lands in favour of the petitioners. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 31-12-2024, observing as follows: “9. However, the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the lease\amount as fixed by the respondents in accordance with value of the land and submitted a representation to the respondents. 10. In view of such circumstances, this Court is inclined to issue directions to the respondents to pass appropriate order by taking into consideration of the recommendations made by the Executive Officer i.e 2nd respondent for sanction of lease in favour of the petitioners, within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.” 6. Pursuant to the above directions, the respondent issued the impugned proceedings. Challenging the same, the subject Writ Petition is filed. The writ petitioners have also filed a review application, seeking review of the above order of this Court dated 31-12-2024, contending that there is a mistake apparent on the fact of the record in as much as the claim of the petitioners was for purchase of the land in terms of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent department, recognizing the petitioners as land less poor persons. 10 7. They argue that there is an apparent error on the record, as their claim was for the purchase of land under the 2nd respondent department's proceedings, recognized them as landless poor persons. The petitioners contend that the order should have directed the respondents to initiate proceedings for the sale of the land, rather than to consider their claim for a lease. Thus, argues that there is a mistake in the order passed by this Court directing the respondents to examine the petitioners' claim for a lease, instead of directing the respondents to issue proceedings for sale of the subject land. 8. The respondents filed counter affidavit contending that the petitioners are not entitled to a grant of lease inasmuch as the subject land is no longer agricultural land, with the expansion of the civil constructions, it is surrounded by big cluster of buildings & residential apartments, and the area falls within the urban agglomeration of Mangalagiri - Tadepalli Municipality, therefore the claim of the petitioners is not justifiable. 9. The 4th respondent Temple filed a counter-affidavit explaining the chronology of the litigation. It is contended that the father of the petitioners, namely Rachakonda Venkataratnam, was a tenant of the 4th respondent temple in respect of land over an extent of 8.45 acres, including the subject property, for five years. Subsequently, 1.88 acres were acquired by the railways for a double gauge railway track, leaving 6.57 acres in his possession. It is further stated that he sublet the remaining land to the third parties, which led to litigation as described below: 11 a) The temple authorities filed eviction petition in ATC. No 35/1981 on the file of Special Officer, Mangalagiri under the provisions of A.P. Tenancy Act. The said case was dismissed on 15.03.1983. b) Aggrieved by the same, the temple authorities filed appeal in ATA No. 44/1983 before Tenancy Appellate Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Guntur. c) Pending ATA, the father of the petitioners herein died, his legal representatives i.e. petitioners 1 to 3 herein and their mother were brought on record as legal representatives of the respondent, in ATA. d) ATA was allowed on 29.01.1998 reversing the order of Special Officer, Mangalagiri passed in ATC. No.35/1981, dated 15.03.1983. e) Aggrieved by the said orders in ATA, the petitioners herein and their mother, who are respondents therein, have filed CRP No.651/1998 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and the same was allowed on 28.07.1999. f) Later, For being mentioned petition was moved in CRP No.651/98. Wherein the High Court passed the following orders: "In such view of the matter, the rents payable by the petitioners - tenants to the temple is now fixed at Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) per year from March, 2000 onwards. It is also submitted that the petitioners have raised gross in the lands and they 12 may be permitted to raise crops, they cannot be any objection whatsoever for raising the crops by the petitioners tenants, which are not prohibited under law." g) It is contended by the respondents that the legal representatives of the deceased tenant late Venkataratnam were obligated to pay rent at Rs.4,000/- per annum for Ac.6.57 cents of land. But subsequently the said land was sub-divided among the legal representatives of the deceased tenant i.e. petitioners 1 to 3 herein and their mother. Further, the then Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur issued Proceedings vide Rc.No.A2/6014/2003, dated 12.02.2004 declared four individuals i.e., the petitioners 1 to 3 herein and their mother as landless poor persons as defined U/Sec.82 of the Act, 1987 vide separate proceedings, without authority of law. h) It is further contended that taking advantage of the proceedings dated 12.02.2004 of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur, the petitioners 1 to 3 herein and their mother filed W.P.No.2398/2006 for Mandamus declaring the action of the Commissioner and Executive Officer in not complying with the same in terms Rule 6(1) of A.P.C. & H.R.I. and Endowments lease of Agricultural land Rules, 2003 for alienation of temple land in their favour. 13 i) Pending W.P.No.2398/2006, the Commissioner of Endowments, as the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur, are not valid, initiated Suo-motu Revision proceedings vide R.P.No. 1/2006 against the Assistant Commissioner, and the Executive Officer of the subject temple and the petitioners 1 to 3 herein and their mother, accordingly vide proceedings dated 24.03.2006, ordered stay of operation of orders of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur, issued in Rc.No.A5/6014/2003 dated 12.02.2004 and served the same on the petitioners 1 to 3 herein and their mother. The petitioners have not challenged the same. As such, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur, dated 12.02.2004, declaring the petitioners 1 to 3 herein and their mother as landless poor persons as defined U/Sec.82 of the Act, 1987 are not in force. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the respondents have recognized the petitioners as landless poor and have issued proceedings in Form-I under Rule 5 of „the Rules‟, and cannot now throw the petitioners out of the lands. 11. The learned Senior Counsel, Sri Gudapati Venkaterswara Rao, appearing for the petitioners, argues that, once the petitioners were recognized as landless poor, the consequences of the said proceedings would follow and the petitioners are entitled to the same. While the petitioners have been in possession of the land and during the operation of the status quo orders, and without cancelling the lease in favour of the petitioners and grant 14 of lease in favour of the Municipal Corporation, without conducting a public auction, is contrary to the provisions of „the Act‟, thus, sought for set aside of the proceedings. 12. The learned Senior Counsel Sri Venugopal Rao, appearing for the 4th respondent temple argues that admittedly there is no tenancy in favour of the petitioners as the original tenant died in 1986. The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987) came into force in May, 1987. In order to seek application of the provisions of Sec.82 of the Act, one should be an existing tenant for a period of six years as on the date of coming into force of „the Act 30 of 1987‟. The erroneous order of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, passed in 2004, recognizing the petitioners as landless poor, was revised by the Commissioner of Endowments, and the petitioners have not been in possession of the subject lands. Thus argues that they cannot still lay their reliance on the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner Endowments. The learned Senior Counsel Sri Venugopal, in support of his contentions, relies on the following judgments: (i) The decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Jaladi Seetharamamma and Another Vs. Sri Ramalingeswara Swami Temple1, wherein it is observed as under: “6. A Full Bench of this Court in S. Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1990 (1) ALT 237, declared that Section 82 of the Endowments Act as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of 1 2004 (6) ALD 739 15 India. In view of uncertainty of the validity of Section 82 of the Endowments Act in the interregnum, various proceedings before the authorities created under the Tenancy Act were continued. The said judgment of this Court has been set aside by the judgment of the Supreme Court in an appeal by the State in State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. Nallamilli Rami Reddi and Others, upholding the legality and validity of Section 82 of the Endowments Act. By virtue of the aforesaid ordinance and the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, all the leases between parties in these petitions came to an end on the date of commencement of the Endowments Act and thereafter there is no landlord and tenancy relationship between the institution and the cultivator. A Division Bench of this Court in WP No.28714 of 1998 dated 19.2.2002 also held that the provisions of A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 have no application to the Endowments Act in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred supra. Therefore, the proceedings before the authorities under the Tenancy Act are not maintainable and the proceedings initiated either by the institution or by the cultivator are non-est in law. 7. For the aforesaid reasons I am of the opinion that all the proceedings initiated and orders passed under the Tenancy Act have become non-est in law and the parties are not entitled to enforce the orders passed under the Tenancy Act. Thus all the matters have become in fructuous.” (ii) The decision of Division Bench of the Telangana High Court in W.P.No.9436 of 2008 dated 23.02.2024. (iii) The decision of this Court in W.P.Nos.5863 & 3933 of 2022 dated 11.03.2024. 13. Considered the rival submissions. 14. The petitioners‟ late father was the cultivating tenant of the subject land for some time before his death. In a previous round of litigation, 16 this Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' lease application. However, the respondents have now rejected the application because the gram panchayath, where the subject lands have been situated has merged with Mangalagiri Municipality, rendering it an urban area. Since the petitioners were never granted a lease for the property, they cannot claim rights under the Act. After their father's death, the temple did not grant a lease to the petitioners, by which time the proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the A.P. Tenancy Act, and the petitioners may have stepped into the shoes of their father as legal representative continued the lis, initiated under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. By the enactment of the legislature governing the Hindu religious and Charitable Institutions, viz., the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987), the grant of lease is governed by the provisions of the said Act 30 of 1987. The respondents have refused to grant a lease of the subject land for agriculture, as the land now falls under an urban agglomeration. Thus, I find no reasons to interfere with the impugned proceedings. 15. Similarly, in the review petition (I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.P.No.2398 of 2006), I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record or any other grounds are pointed out warranting interference to review of the order passed in W.P.No.2398 of 2006. The Writ Petition and the review petition are accordingly dismissed. 17 16. However, in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.2398 of 2006 (For being mentioned Petition), the petitioners does not press for the subject prayer in the application. 17. With the above observation, W.P.No.14275 of 2025 and I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2025 in W.P.No.2398 of 2006 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:30.12.2025 MVK 18 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.14275 of 2025 & I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2025 in W.P.No.2398 of 2006 Date:30.12.2025 MVK