The High Court · 2025

1 . Sri Venkat Rao, the Commissioner, Endowments, Govt. of Telangana, Office at Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad.

2. M.M.D. Krishna Veni, Additional Commissioner, Endowments, Govt. of Telangana, Office at Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad. 3 Sri Chandrashekar, Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Sangareddy, Saganreddy District. 4 Sri Shivarudrappa, Executive Officer, Sree Siddeshwara Temple, at Algole Road, Zaheerabad town and Mandal, Sangareddy Diskict. ...Respondents/Respond nets Counsel forthe Petitioner: Sri VENKAT REDDY, counsel representing SRI M.DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI BHUKYA MANGILAL NAIK, GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE E.V.\I DNUGOPAL CONTEMPT CASE No.178S ot'2025 ORDER: The present contcmpr case is hled by the pet I oner praying to try and punish the respondents for their wilful and d: iberate violation of the lrnal order dated o2.o5.2o2s in wp No.l47o9 o1 |o25 of this court.

2. Heard Sri Venkat Reddy, learned co I tsel representing Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the tetitioner and Sri Bhukya Mangilal Naik, learned Government pleader tr Endowments.

3. The present contempt case is filed by the pe t tioner, who is the petitioner in wP No. 14709 of 2o2s, alleging that tt e respondents are not obeying the orders of this Court in considerin5; his representation dated 25-03.2025 anrl rhaL their inaction is rr rthing but wilful disobedience and hencc, they are liabre to be tried ar d punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.

4. The petitioner filecl Wp No. 14709 of 2O25 set.l ing issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action o[ the respon( ents in not taking steps to appoint the petitioner as chairman of the Ti ust Board of sree Siddeshwara Swamy Temple, Algol Road, Zahcc.: abad Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District from among five trust I oard members of the said temple as consrituted by the respondent; vide proceedings No.Fa/6L812O25, dated 2O.OI.2O2S, as the petitioner alone being eligible for appointment as Chairman of being trust board member from founder family under Section t7(l) and Section 2O{lXb) of Endowments Act, 1987, though the prescribed period of 2 months as prescribed under Section 2O(1) of the Act, 1987 was expired long back, as illegal, unlawful, contrary to law and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Chairman to the Trust Board of the above temple under Section 2O(b) of the Act, 1987.

5. This Court, vide its order dated O2.O5.2O25, disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.03.2025 and to pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible strictly in accordance with law.

6. The learned counsel lor the petitioner submits tl.at the petitioner is a founder family member of Sri Siddi Lingeshwara Swamy Temple, Zaheerabad and lvas declarcd as such by the 46 respondent through proceedings dated 16.04.20O7 after due enquiry. An appeal against this by one Allipuram Gal Reddy was dismissed by the Commissioner. For 2023-24, the peLitioner u,as appointed as a trust board member from the founder family, but not as Chairman due to lack of quorum, as other members failed to take oath. However, being the sole founder family member, he u,as eligible for the post. ln 2024-25, the petitioner was again appointed as a trustee. In WP No.274 O /2025,,tlre this Court Pagc J of4 directed that he be appointed as a Chairman witho- - election. In view of delay 1n implementing the said order, the p,t litioner hled WP No.l47O9/2025 and by order dated 02.05.2025, the )ourt directed the respondents to consider his appointment under Setrl on 19 of the Act. Though the respondents administered oaths to th( trust board, they failed to appoint the petitioner as Chairman, violatin;the High Court's order. A contempt notice dated O2.O7.2O25 was issr ed, but no action was taken, leading to the present Contempt Case

7. [.earned Government Pleader for Endowments rv filing a counter would submit that that the petitioner has challengec the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Depar .ment, Medak in Rc.No.E/1134/2024, dated O8.07.2025 in W.P.Nc 2177a of 2025, which is currently pending before this Court. Dzrr'l er, the petitioner also filed W.P.No.274O of 2025 against the Depar ment's failure to appoint him as Chairman of the subject temple, r,r,l r :h was dismissed by this Court on 1O.O3.2O25 with liberty to pt rsue appropriate remedies in accordance with law. It is further sr bmitted that the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No. 14701 of 2025, dated O2.O5.2O25, have been fully complied with, as reflect :d in the disposal of the petitioner's representation by order dal,: I Oa.O7,2025 in Rc.No.E/ ll34l2o24- Stating thus, he prays to clis :niss the present contempt petition.

8. Having heard the learne d counse 1 for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and upon perusal of the material placed on record, this Court does not find any merit in tJ.e present contempt case, as the official respondents have already passed orders vide proceedings dated 08.O7.2025 in Rc.No.E,l ll34 /2024. The said orders have been challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.2l7T8 of 2O25, which is currently pending adjudication. In view of the same, the present contempt case is liable to be closed.

9. In the result, the present contempt case is closed. SD/. N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUW REGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI M.DAMODAR REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 2. Two CCs to GP FOR ENDOWMENTS, High Court for the State of Telangana

3. Two CD Copies M NVB/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1910912025 ORDER CC.No.1785 ot 2025 ;.HESiA r€ J I 7 JA\ ?O2E .* ._ lr:,, ,....i r- .-i. :':-::::.': :4' CLOSING THE GONTEMPT CASE \!1rIl ol. 1