✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court

Sri V.Srihari Rao v. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Turners Choultry, Visakhapatnam and four others

Writ Petition No. 11121 of 2005C V NAGARJUNA

Case at a glance

Bench
C V NAGARJUNA

Outcome

Disposed of

Petition is disposed of

Judgment

Cause title

Between: Sri V.Srihari Rao. … Petitioner

And The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Turners Choultry, Visakhapatnam and four others. … Respondents

Counsel for the petitioners:

Sri P.Srinivasa Rao Counsel for respondents: AGP for Endowments for R.1,R.2 & R.4. Sri B.Srinivasa Reddy, representing Sri T.Niranjan Reddy for R.3 Sri N.Guru Gopal for R.5 This Court made the following:

ORDER:

Operative part

This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 27-4-2005 passed by respondent No.1 in D.Dis. No.A2/4160/2004. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to re-enquire into the matter and not to make any appointments to the Board of Trustees of respondent No.2-temple until respondent No.1 decides the matter afresh. Heard Sri P.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1, 2 and 4; Sri B.Srinivasa Rao, counsel appearing for Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3; and Sri N.Gurugopal, learned counsel for respondent No.5; and perused the record. The petitioner filed an application before respondent No.1 to declare him as a person belonging to a member of the founder family of respondent No.2- temple. The said application was rejected by a reasoned order passed by respondent No.1, which is challenged in this Writ Petition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the petitioner approached a wrong authority instead of approaching the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments having jurisdiction over the area. Learned counsel for respondents 3 and 5 admitted that respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner’s application and to adjudicate the same on merits. In view of the same, the impugned order is set aside. This, however, does not mean petitioner’s claim is accepted by this Court. The petitioner is left free to approach the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner under Section 87(h) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.14277of 2005 is dismissed as infructuous. --------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:14-07-2008 MNR

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is disposed of

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 — s. 87(h).

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 11121 of 2005). ← Search more judgments