Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/26554/2025 of Y SRINIVASULU Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 4 January 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 26554/2025 Between: 1. Y SRINIVASULU, S/O. CHINNA VENKATESWARLU, AGED 41 YEARS. R/O
APHC010516252025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NO: 26554/2025
Between:
1. Y SRINIVASULU, S/O. CHINNA VENKATESWARLU, AGED 41
YEARS. R/O D.NO.10-7-7, SANYAASI VEEDHI, BRAHMANA
VEEDHI, NEAR RAM SAI MANDIR, VIJAYAWADA-520001)
2. TANGELLA NAGA DURGA, , W/O. HANUMANTHA RAO, AGED 37
YEARS. R/O D.NO.10-7-7, SANYAASI VEEDHI, BRAHMANA
VEEDHI, NEAR RAM SAI MANDIR, VIJAYAWADA-520001)
3. U.SEETARAMALAKSHMI,, W/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED 52
YEARS. R/O D.NO.10-7-7, SANYAASI VEEDHI, BRAHMANA
VEEDHI, NEAR RAM SAI MANDIR, VIJAYAWADA-520001)
4. K.ANIL KUMAR,, S/O. JAMALAIAH, AGED 38 YEARS. R/O
RAM SAI MANDIR, VIJAYAWADA-520001)
5. K.DURGA RAO,, S/O. JAMALAIAH, AGED 39 YEARS. R/O
D.NO.10-7-7, SANYAASI VEEDHI, BRAHMANA VEEDHI, NEAR
RAM SAI MANDIR, VIJAYAWADA-520001)
6. PRAKHYA LAKSHMI KUMARI,, W/O RAGHURAMA SARMA, AGED
55 YEARS. R/O D.NO.10-7-7, SANYAASI VEEDHI, BRAHMANA
VEEDHI, NEAR RAM SAI MANDIR, VIJAYAWADA-520001)
7. I.AADI SESHU DEVI,, W/O. I.SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 44 YEARS
R/O D.NO.10-7-7, SANYAASI VEEDHI, BRAHMANA VEEDHI, NEAR
RAM SAI MANDIR, VIJAYAWADA-520001)
8. K.JAYA LAKSHMI,, W/O. K.SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 50 YEARS. R/O
RAM SAI MANDIR, VIJAYAWADA-520001)
9. K.NAGAMALLESAWARA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED
31 YEARS. R/O D.NO.10-7-7, SANYAASI VEEDHI, BRAHMANA
VEEDHI, NEAR RAM SAI MANDIR, VIJAYAWADA-520001)
10. G.VENKATESWARA RAO,, S/O. PENTARAO, AGED 45 YEARS.
R/O D.NO.10-7-7, SANYAASI VEEDHI, BRAHMANA VEEDHI, NEAR
RAM SAI MANDIR, VIJAYAWADA-520001)
11. Y.VENKATESWARLU,, S/O.CHINNA VENKATESWARLU, AGED 49
YEARS. R/O D.NO.10-7-7, SANYAASI VEEDHI, BRAHMANA
VEEDHI, NEAR RAM SAI MANDIR, VIJAYAWADA-520001)
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, GOVERNMENT OF
ANDHRA PRADESH, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA.
3. SRI DURGA MALLESWARASWAMI VARLA DEVASTHANAM, REP.BY
ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INDRAKEELADRI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Impugned auction of respondents.
particularly
2nd
respondent
in
issuing
the
impugned
proceedings
Rc.No.Cl/1444/2022, dt 19.09.2025, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, apart from contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, consequently set aside the same, by further directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioners for extension of license period for further period of 3 years, on par with the other licensees, granted extension of 8
years, by Government vide G.O.Ms.No.69 Revenue (Endowments.il)
Department, dt 10.01.2022, with enhancement of rent, in the interest of Justice and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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 may be pleased to vacate interim order granted in I.A.No.1/2025 in W.P.No.26554/2025 Dt:26-09-2025 and dismiss the main writ petition as devoid of merits and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2025
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 may be pleased to vacate Interim order granted in I.A.No. 1/2025 in the W.P.No.26554/2025, Dated 26.09.2025 and dismiss the main writ petition as devoid of merits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. G V SHIVAJI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. KAPPERA KOTESWARA RAO SC for Endowments, AP Region.
2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
The Court made the following:
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:
Heard Sri G. V. Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri Kappera Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3-Temple.
2. The challenge in the Writ Petition is to the proceedings of the respondent No.3-Temple rejecting the claim of the petitioners for extension of lease that had expired on 30.06.2025. The writ petitioners' request for extension of lease was rejected on account of the fact that developmental activities of the temple were proposed at the subject area, and further having regard to the fact that during peak seasons, the number of pilgrims visiting the Temple increases, thus the further extension may cause congestion in the area.
3. The petitioners herein and others have filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.15931 & 16753 of 2025 before this Court seeking extension of licenses which were expiring on 30.06.2025. This Court while disposing of the said Writ Petitions on 21.07.2025 has observed as follows:
“Having regard to the fact that no orders on the representation made by the petitioners, have been passed and communicated to the petitioners, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petitions directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders pursuant to the proposals submitted by the 3rd respondent on 30.12.2024 in Rc.No.C1/1444/2022 in connection with the representation of the petitioners, in accordance with law, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioners. Till passing of such orders, the interim orders passed by this Court on 30.06.2025 would continue.”
In pursuance of the above thereof, the impugned proceedings were passed rejecting the case of the petitioners for extension of the license.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Executive Officer of the Temple has considered the request of the petitioners for extension and recommended for extension, however the very same Officer vide the impugned proceedings has directed the petitioners to vacate from the subject property which is unjust and sought for set aside of the same.
5. The respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit stating that, in order to ensure a smooth flow of pilgrims during the peak times, the request of the petitioners was rejected for extension of license at the subject location, as the same has been blocking the pathways meant for the pilgrims. It is further stated that the G.O.Ms. No.69, on which reliance was placed by the petitioners, would not be applicable to the present case. The Executive Officer of the Temple filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioners are in arrears of the license fee. Thus they are not entitled for grant of any further extension of license expired on 30.06.2025 further having regard to the fact that it was felt necessary to carry out certain developmental works at Kananka Durga Nagar. Despite the expiry of the license period, the petitioners have not vacated the said area.
6. During the course of arguments, the petitioners have also filed an affidavit stating that they would have no objection to relocating to any other place within the premises of the subject Temple if an alternate area is provided for running their shops. The petitioners thus requested that they be allowed to shift their shops either to Ghat Road or Shivalayam or Kanaka Durga Nagar.
7. The respondent No.3-Temple filed a counter affidavit not acceding to the request made by the petitioners. It is stated that the areas sought by the petitioners are not agreeable for extension.
8. Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case interests of justice would be met if the petitioners' request for an extension of the lease up to 30-06- 2026 for any other premises belonging to the 3rd respondent temple, is considered. Therefore, this court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the petitioners' case for allotting alternate shops on the 5th floor of the Mahamandapam Complex and to allow the petitioners to run their business up to 30.06.2026 on payment of monthly rentals. After expiry of the said period, the petitioner shall vacate the said premises allotted at Mahamandapam and deliver the vacant possession of the same to the respondent No.3. In this regard, the respondents 2 and 3 shall pass appropriate orders within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to observe that the petitioners shall vacate the present shops at Down Hill, Kanakadurga Nagar within three weeks from the date of receipt of the order. This order will not preclude the respondents from recovering any arrears of rent from the petitioners.
9. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 05.01.2026 MSI
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NO: 26554/2025
Dated: 05.01.2026 MSI