The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad The Commissioner of Endowments, Office at Abids, Hyderabad, Telangana The District Collector, Bhadradri Kothagudem District At Kothagudem Sri Seetha Ramachandraswamy Vaari Devasthanam, Rep by its Executive Officer At Bhadrachalam Bhadradri Kothagudem District ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS { TO 5 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 suspend the operation of the order d1.15.4.2024 in W.P. No. 6335 of 2022. lA NO: 4 OF 2024. 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 suspend the [Vlemo No. 10747lEndts.lllAzl2o24, dated 18-05-2024 and consequentiat proceedings No. 10747lEndls.lllA2l2O24, dated 24-05-2024, pending disposal of the main Writ Appeal. lA NO: 5 OF 2024 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 suspend the proceedings vide Memo R. C. No. 41/34812024, d1.17-05-2024, pending disposal of the main Writ Appeal. t :19 Counsel for the Appellant: SRI L.RAVICHANDER, SENIOR COUNSLE FOR SRI RAHUL BHATI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI D.V.SITHARAM MURTHY, SENIOR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2,3 & 5: SRI BHKYA MANGILAL NAIK, COUNSEL FOR SRI A.V.RAGHURAM GP FOR ENDOWMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR REVENUE W.A.NO: 697 OF 2024 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred ,Against the Order Dated 1510412024 in W.P.No.37B9B of 2022 on the file of the High Court. Between: The Chief Priest, Sree Seetha Ranachandra Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, Telangana. ...APPELLANTRESPONDENT No.5 AND

1. G.T.V. Manidhar, S/o. GHL Prasad, Aged. about 41 years, Occ. Astrologer and Religious Speaker, R/o. Flat No.5274,5275, 5th Block. llrd Wing, 2nd Floor, Janapriya Metropolis Motinagar, Hyderabad -500018. ...WRIT PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. Pincode-500022

3. The Commissioner of Endowments, Office at Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad Boggulkunt,a Hyderabad-50000 1

4. The District Collector, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. Kothagudem-SO7101 Telangana

5. Sree Seetha Ramachandra Swamy Vari Devasthanam Bhadrachalam, Bhadradrikothagudem District,Telangana-SO71 1 '1 Rep. by its Executive officer ...RE'''NDENTS/RES'.NDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRI K.RAGHAVA CHARYULU Gounsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI V.HARIHARAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR Counsql for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI BHUKYA MANGILAL NAIK' SRI SRIKANTH HARIHARAN Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI J.R.MANOHARRAO, SC FOR GP FOR ENDOWMENT ENDOWMENT The Cqurt made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT sj9 .: THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL Nos.338 alo.d. 697 of 2024 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice) Sri L. Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Rahul Bhati, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.338 of 2024; Sri D.V. Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Siri A.V. Raghuram, learned counsel for respondent No.1/Writ l)etitioner in W.A.No.338 of 2t)24 and Sri K. Raghar a Charyrlu, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.697 ol' 2024, Sri V. Hariharan, learned Senir:r Counsel representing Sri Srikanth Hariharan, learned cr)unsel for respondent Nc,.1 in W.A.No.697 of 2024 and Sri Bhukva Mangilal Naik, learned Government Pleader for Endowments, for official respondents-Endowment Department in both the Writ Appeals.

2. Since common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.6335 and 37898 of 2022 is ca-lled in question in these Writ Appeals, at the joint request of the parties bol.h the Writ Appeals are alalogously heard.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that 1.he learned Single Judgt: without deciding the ob;ection regarding 2 I maintainability of the Writ Petitions, which goes to the root of the matter ald based on the judgment of Supreme Court in the Srirrari Daada v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanamsl passed the impugned interlocutory order which is bad in law. The learned Single Judge should not have directed thg Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, to constitute a committee and submit a report

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that t- t these Writ Appeals are not maintainable because (i) out of three Writ Petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.6335, 37898 and 13168 of 2022 in which the impugned interlocutory ord.er was passed in one Writ Petition no appeal is preferred, as such the order has attained frnality, (ii) against an interlocutory order no Writ Appeal is maintainable and (iii) the Iearned Single Judge merely passed a direction for constitution of a committee and to obtain report, which is in furtherance of adjudication. Thus, no fault can be found in the impugned order.

5. No other point is pressed.

6. The question of maintainability of the Writ Appeal against the interlocutory order is not res integra. ' s.l.e..1c; No. 6554 of202l, decided on 16.1 1.2021 \ \ J

7. In The University of Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar, Central University Campus (P.Ol, Gachibowli, Hyderabad v Sadik Hussain and Othersz, a Division Bench of this Court considered Clause 15 of the l,etters Patent and opined that it provides an appeal from a Judgment' of single Judge in exercise of original jurisdiction to a Division Bench. The previou s judgment of a Division Bench in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D.Kanias was considered and it was held that 'orders fal.ling under categoies (iu) and (u) are not 'judgments' for the purpose of filing a appeals prouided under the Letter Patent'. Categories (iv) and (v) read thus: "(iv) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the [)rogress of the case till its culmination in the hnal judgment. (v) Orders which may calrse some inconvenience c)r some prejudicc -:o a party, but which do not hnally' deternrine the rights and obligations of the parties." Lastly, the Division Bench recorded as under: " At the cost of the repetition, it is to be noticed that the learned Single Judge has not decided the rights and obligations of the parties and onlv passed interlocutory orders and hence in our considered view the same does not satisfv the trappings of the iudgments as defined under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and it will be appropriate for the appellant to file vacate petition. Accordingly, the v,rit appeal is disposecl of with the said observation." (Emphasis Supplied) '? 2013 scc online A) 342 ' I98l eIR 1786 { I I t: ; I 4

8. In Midnapore Peoplest Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Naodaa, the Supreme Court held as under: "15. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passe4 during the pendency of a case, fall under one or the other of the following categories: (t) Orders which hnally decide a question controversy in the main case. or lssue ln (itJ Orders which hnally decide an issue which materially and directly affects the hnal decision in the rnain case. (iiz] Orders which finally decide a collateral issue or question which is not the subject-matter of the main case. ., (iu) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment. (u) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party, but which do not hnally determine the rights and obligations of the parties.

16. The term '.judgment" occurring in clause 15 of the Letters Patent will take into its fold not only the judgments as dehned in Section 2(91 CPC and orders enumerated in Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, but also other orders which, though may not finally and conclusively determine the rights of parties with regard to all or any matters in controversy, may have finality in regard to some collateral matter, which wiII affect the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties. Interlocutory orders which fall under categories (zJ to (iirJ above, are, therefore, ".judgments" for the purpose of filing appea,ls under the Letters Patent. On the other hand, orders falling under categories (fu) and (u) are not "iudgments" for the pu{ppsc of Iiling appeals provided under the Letters Patent." (Emphasis Supplied) n (2006) 5 scc 399 \ \ , tl' \ 5 The Suprr:me Court in a recent judgment in Shyam SeI And 9 Power Limited v Shyam Steel tndustries Limiteds took a similar view.

10. The Supreme Court laid down ttre litmus test to determine , I whether order impugned is a Judgment' within the rneaning of ' Letters Patent. If the present matter is examined on the anvil of said principies, it will be clear that (i) by impugned order the learned Single Judge has not frnally decided the questi,:rn or issue in controversy in the main case, (ii) the impugred order has not decided ally iss;ue which materially or directly affects f,rrral decision in the Writ Petitions, (iii) the impugned order does not have any impact on a crollateral issue or question which was l-rot subject matter of main case. 1 1. We have no doubt that the learned Single Judge before touching upon the merits of the case will deal with maintainability of the Writ F'etitions by taking into account the jr'Ldgment of Supreme Court Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (su1;ra). In our opinion, the Writ Appeals against the impugned interlocutory order are not tenable. 5 2022 Livelaw (SC),182 6

12. With the observation mentioned hereinabove, these Writ Appeals are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-I. NAGA LAKSHMI UTY REGISTRAR EGTION OFFICER To er*

1. The Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretaiiat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana Telangana Z. The Cthmissioner of Endowments, Office at, Tilak Road,Abids, Hyderabad,

3. The D"istrict Collector, Bhadradri Kothagudem District At Kothagudem 4. Executive Officer At Bhadrachalam Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Sri Seetha Ramachandraswamy Vaari Devasthanam 5. One CC to SRI RAHUL BHATI, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI K.RAGHAVA CHARYULU, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI A.V.RAGHRAM, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to SR! SRIKANTH HARIHARAN, Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to SRI J.R.MANOHAR RAO, SC FOR ENDOWMENT [gl')tlcl 10.Two CCs to GP FOR ENDOWMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana, 11.Two'CCs to GPFORREVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at at Hyderabaf,. [OUT] Hyderabad. [OUT]

12.Trio cD copies PSK \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:2710212025 I I COMMON JUDGMENT WA.Nos.338 AND 697 ot 2024 ,r 'i i.- '! ' ,,. TltE s 14 /{: gI nrn 20fr .,,,. \-_ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS