APHC010336592026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 18044 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-3 [3506] Tiru Kshetrala Rakshana Samithi, rep. by its President ...Petitioner Vs. The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (TTD)`and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: PILLIX LAW FIRM Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr.Sai Saran Chodisetty representing Ms.AMRUTHA BOPPUDI, GP FOR ENDOWMENTS; MR.C. SUMAN (for R5) CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 16th July 2026 ORDER: Present writ petition 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 action of the Nos.1. 3 and 4 in not considering the petitioner’s representation, dated 06.06.2026, submitted seeking implementation of Memo Roc. No TTD70021(31)/541 /2023-CVSO-SEC-TTD, dated 11.03.2024, and consequential Memo dated 16.07.2024, against the 5th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 06.06.2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law within such times as may be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court, and to pass….” 2 CGR, J. W.P.No.18044 of 2026 2. Heard Mr.P.Aditya Harshavardhan, learned counsel, representing M/s.Pillix Law Firm, for the petitioner; Mr.Sai Saran Chodisetty, learned counsel, representing Ms.Amrutha Boppudi, learned counsel for Respondents 1, 3 and 4; and Mr.C.Suman, learned counsel, appearing for 5th respondent. 3. Learned counsels appearing for both official respondents and as well as unofficial 5th respondent, on instructions, state that in pursuance to proceedings in Roc.NoTTD-70021(31)/541/2023-CV SO-SEC-TTD, dated 11.03.2024, yet again, by Memo., dated 16.07.2024, repeated directions were issued for implementation of the earlier memo, pursuant to which the 5th respondent has already paid back the amounts. Not only that, even the 5th respondent stated to have been warned not to indulge in such kind of activities in future. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, the grievance of the petitioner in his representation, dated 06.06.2026, thus, stands redressed. Therefore, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any in this case, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN cs