Telangana High Court
CMA/1138/2014 of Gaduturi Gopala Krishna Vs The Dy Commissioner of Endowments on 31 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANIOUS APPEAL No.1138 of 2014 Date:31.12.2014 Between: Guduturi Gopala Krishna ..... Appellant. AND The Dy. Commissioner of Endowment, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District and others. ....Respondents. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CIVIL MISCELLANIOUS APPEAL No.1138 of 2014
Date:31.12.2014
Between:
Guduturi Gopala Krishna..... Appellant.
ANDThe Dy. Commissioner of Endowment,Visakhapatnam,Visakhapatnam District and others.....Respondents.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CIVIL MISCELLANIOUS APPEAL No.1138 of 2014
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred against the return order, dated 29-12-2014,in OASR No…../2014 (CFR.No.3225/2014) on the file of A.P.Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, whereunder the Tribunal returnedthe OASR of the petitioner on the ground that the citations relied onby the applicant are not relevant to the issue on hand and it isreturned by the Administrative Officer of the Office.
2. This appeal is preferred invoking Section 88 of A.P. Charitable andHindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987 contending thatthe order of the Tribunal dated 29-12-2014 is contrary to law. But as seen from the material papers,the impugned order is not passed by the Tribunal. It is not signed bythe Presiding Officer it was returned by Administrative Officer of theTribunal. Therefore, the appeal as filed is not maintainable underSection 88 of the said Act became the impugned order cannot betreated as Judicial Order, therefore, the appeal is liable to bedismissed.
3. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed at admission stage. However,petitioner is at liberty to represent the same application before theTribunal and the Tribunal shall consider the same, without beinginfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. No costs.
4. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal,shall stand dismissed.
__________________________
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR