Telangana High Court
WP/27526/2005 of lakshmi Babi, Vs the Assistant Commissioner on 26 December 2005
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 27526 of 2005 Between: Lakshmi Babi ..... PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAHWRIT PETITION No. 27526 of 2005
Between:
Lakshmi Babi
AND
The Assistant Commissioner,
Endowment Department, Kurnool.
..... PETITIONER
.....RESPONDENT
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.
ORDER:
Seeking a Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in contemplating toregister the subject temple Sri Mala Malleswara Temple, Neraniki Thanda village,Holagunda Mandal, Kurnool District without hearing the objections of the petitionerunder Section 43 of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions andEndowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’), as illegal and arbitrary, the present writpetition is filed.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader forEndowments.
The petitioner submits that Sri Mala Malleswara Temple, Neraniki Thanda village,Holagunda Mandal of Kurnool District belongs to her family and she is the Trustee ofthe said Temple. It is stated that when the said temple sought to be registered underthe Act, the petitioner made objections/representations to the respondent on20.09.2005 and 14.12.2005, but without considering the said representation ascontemplated under Section 43(5) of the Act, the respondent is taking steps toregister the said temple.
I am not inclined to express any opinion whether the said temple is liable to beregistered under the Act and whether any tenable objections are there on the part ofthe petitioner as against the action of the respondent in registering the temple underthe Act. But, however, when a representation is pending, it is just and proper for therespondent to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the 1[st] respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the objections/representationsof the petitioner dated 20.09.2005 and 14.12.2005, in accordance with law, aftergiving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner before passing any final ordersunder Section 43 of the Act.
With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Dated: 26.12.2005
Dsr
Note:Issue CC in two daysB/o
Dsr
________________
V.ESWARAIAH,J