IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE :PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

IA No. 1 OF 2021 IN WP NO: 11611 OF 2021

Between:

Pothina Venkata Mahesh, S/o. P. Rama Rao, aged about 46 years, Hindu, Social worker, Residing at D.No. 9-69-26, Silpaasramam Street, Kotha Peta Vijayawada $-520011.$

...Petitioner

AND

• 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Revenue, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi – 522237.
• 2. The SPL. Commissioner, Endowment Department AP, Gollapudi, Vijayawada 521225.
• 3. M. V. Suresh Babu, Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department MZ-I, Rajahmahndavaram, East Godavari District.

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI GANGISETTI UMA SANKAR

Counsel for the Respondents :M/s BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceeding issued by the 1^st respondent in vide GO. Rt. No. 262 dated 17.05.2021 appointing the 3^rd respondent as the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments department of MZ-I Rajahamahendarvarm, till disposal of the main writ petition and consequently direct the respondent No. 3 to report the Government as per G.O.RT. No<br>208 Date 08-042021 issued by the 1^st respondent in the interest of justice, pending disposal of WP No.11611 of 2021, on the file of the High Court.

The court while directing issue of notice to the Respondents herein to show cause as to why this application should not be complied with, made the following order. (The receipt of this order will be deemed to be the receipt of notice in the case). The Court made the following; ORDER:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU I.A.No.1 of 2021

$\mathbf{1}$

In

WRIT PETITION No.11611 of 2021

ORDER:

The application is filed to suspend the proceedings dated 17.05.2021 appointing the $3^rd$ respondent as Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments till disposal of the main Writ Petition.

The petitioner is a private individual. He states that the 3^rd respondent was appointed as a Joint Commissioner, Endowments and that he is facing an enquiry and investigation by the ACB for certain deeds / misdeeds while he was working as Executive Officer of Durga Melleswara Swamy Vari Temple, Vijayawada (Durga Temple, Vijayawada). These were commenced by the proceedings dated $21.02.2021$ . It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the posting of the $3^rd$ respondent in an important office of the Department of Endowments is totally incorrect and he should not be in any position of power and authority as he is likely to influence the witnesses in the ACB investigation and enquiry proceedings. The petitioner also submits that he made a representation to suspend and withdraw the posting of the 3^rd respondent as the Regional Joint Commissioner but no action was taken. Hence the Writ Petition and the interim prayer for suspending the proceeding issued by the $1^st$ respondent vide G.O. Rt.No.262, dated 17.05.2021 in appointing the 3^rd

respondent as the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department of MZ-I Rajamahendravaram till disposal of the main Writ Petition.

2

Learned senior counsel Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana who appears for the $3^rd$ respondent raised a fundamental issue about the locus standi of the petitioner to file this Writ Petition. He points out that the petitioner cannot file a Writ Petition questioning the posting of the $3^rd$ respondent as he is not in any way affected by the same. He points out that to claim a mandamus the petitioner should have a right, that there should be a corresponding duty on the part of the respondent and only on the failure of the respondent to perform the duty a mandamus can be issued. He points out that none of the conditions essential for grant of a mandamus are present in this case. Therefore, he submits that the interim prayer also cannot be granted. In the alternate he submits that the apprehension of the petitioner is also clearly unfounded.

Learned counsel for the petitioner points out to this Court that earlier the petitioner has filed W.P.No.16903 of 2019 against the 4^th respondent and others. He sought a relief that the 4^th respondent is ineligible to hold the post of the Executive Officer of the temple. He also argues that the Writ Petition was allowed after upholding his locus standi and posting of the $4^th$ respondent as Executive Officer was set aside. Therefore,

learned counsel for the petitioner argues that this Writ is also maintainable and interim relief should be granted.

This Court at this stage is only expressing prima facie opinion.

As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel, the posting of the 3^rd respondent in a temple as an Executive Officer is the subject matter of the decision in the earlier Writ Petition. The Learned Single Judge while discussing point No.1 held that since the petitioner and his forefathers claimed to be staunch devotees of the 3^rd respondent Durga temple, he had the locus in view of the definition of a "person having interest" under Section 2 (18) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. Since the issue pertains to a temple and the posting of an ineligible person in a temple, the learned single Judge held that the petitioner has interest in view of the definition of "a person having interest". The same is not the case here. Without stating anything on the merits of the matter, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the judgment in W.P.No.16903 of 2019 does not appear to show that the petitioner has the locus to file the present Writ Petition about the posting of the 3^rd respondent. This Court is of the prima facie opinion that the petitioner does not have the locus to request this Court to pass an interim order. A detailed counter is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the matter. This Court also prima facie does not find that there

$\mathbf{3}$

Backers

is any attempt to influence the witnesses nor if there is any clarity as to how the petitioner is apprehending that the investigation by the ACB will be hampered or hindered due to the petitioner's actions.

4

Leaving open all the issues for decision, including the maintainability, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief in this Interlocutory Application.

Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application is dismissed. List the Writ Petition after six weeks for filing counter.

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/-M.RameshBabu

SECTION

FOR ASSISTANT REST

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

SFFICER

To,

• 1. The Principal Secretary, Endowments Department Revenue, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi – 522237.
• 2. The SPL. Commissioner, Endowment Department AP, Gollapudi, Vijayawada 521225.
• 3. M. V. Suresh Babu, Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department MZ-I, Rajahmahndavaram, East Godavari District (1 to 3 By RPAD)

4. One CC to Sri. Gangisetti Uma Sankar Advocate [OPUC]

5. One CC to M/s Bharadwaj Associates, Advocate [OPUC]

6. One spare copy.

MSB

HIGH COURT

DVSS,J

DATED:06/07/2021

ORDER

IA No. 1 OF 2021 $\mathsf{I}\mathsf{N}$ WP.No.11611 of 2021

I.A. IS DISMISSED