Neutral Citation:__________ Date of reserved for orders : -- Date of pronouncement : 24.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010253542016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 5344/2016 Between: 1. GNANAPURAM YERNIMAMBA SANKSHEMA SANGHAM,, SIRIL STREET, GNANAPURAM VISAKHAPATNAM REP BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI NAMMI RAJAGOPAL, S/O APPA RAO, AGE 48 YEAR, HINDU, R/O. 34-15-31, SIRIL STREET, GNANAPURAM VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE COMMISSIONER ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD 3. MEMBER SECRETARY ANDHRA PRADESH DHARMIK, PARISHAD, "FLAK ROAD, HYDERABAD 4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 5. MANAGER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER, YERNIMANNBA TEMPLE, GNANAPURAM VISAKHAPATNAM ...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 Writ, Order, Direction more particularly on in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in interfering with the maintenance of the petitioner association as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21,25 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue with petitioner association for management and day to day activities of temple run by petitioner association, and pass such other 2 order or orders as this Hontle Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 6806 OF 2016 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 respondents not to interfere with the management of temple run by petitioner association, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G SIVA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. CHINTAPALLI SRINIVAS 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 3. ELEVATED AS JUDGE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.5344 of 2016 ORDER: Despite the writ petition being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, it indicates that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 24.06.2026 KBN Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned Reportable Non-reportable 4 08 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 5344 of 2016 Date: 24.06.2026 KBN