THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI W.P.No.18659 of 2005 Between:
Sri Mahant Bharat Das PETITIONER AND
1. The Government of Andhra Pradesy, rep. by its Secretary, Endowments, Secretariat Buildings, Near Tak Bund, Hyderabad, and others.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the action of the 1st respondent State Government in refusing to grant stay of the orders of the 2nd respondent-Regional Joint commissioner, Multi Zone-III, Endowments, Hyderabad, as being arbitrary and illegal.
2. Heard Sri A.P. Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the 4th respondent.
3. The facts, which are essential for disposal of the present writ petition, are as follows:-
The 4th respondent-institution filed O.A.No.3 of 2001 before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad under Section 83 of the Endowments Act, seeking eviction of the petitioner. In the said O.A., the 4th respondent-institution filed I.A.No.71 of 2003, seeking a direction to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- said to have been collected by the petitioner by way of rents from the 5th respondent. The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments-3rd respondent herein, vide orders in I.A.No.71 of 2003 directed the petitioner to deposit the rents said to have been collected by him. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed R.P.No.1118 of 2004 before the 2nd respondent-Regional Joint commissioner, Endowments Department, Multi Zone-III, Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent by way of an order dated 25.02.2005, dismissed the said revision petition. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a further revision before the 1st respondent-State Government under Section 93 of the Endowments Act, on 26.07.2005.
4. The grievance, precisely, in the present writ petition is that even though the petitioner sought stay of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent State Government refused to interfere. In the above back ground, the present writ petition has been instituted.
5. This Court, while issuing Rule Nisi, passed order on 25.08.2005 in W.P.M.P.No.23733 of 2005, suspending the operation of the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, dated 16.02.2004 in I.A.No.71 of 2003 in O.A.No.3 of 2001 only to the extent of relieving the petitioner from the obligation to deposit the amount of Rs.3,25,000/- to the credit of O.A.No.3 of 2001, pending before the 3rd respondent.
6. Though this Court issued Rule Nisi as long back as on 25.08.2005 and granted interim order, no counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents in the direction of either denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, or in the direction of justifying the impugned action. It is also to be noted that the above said interim order granted by this Court on 25.08.2005 is still subsisting. Another significant aspect, which is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that after the amendments brought in to the Endowments Act, O.A.No.3 of 2001 filed by the 4th respondent before the 3rd respondent-Deputy Commissioner, was transferred to the Endowments Tribunal and the same was renumbered as O.A.No.61 of 2010 and the same is coming up for arguments, on 17.09.2014.
7. In view of the above reasons, this court deems it appropriate to continue the interim order granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.23733 of 2005, dated 25.08.2005 by making the same as final order pending disposal of O.A.No.61 of 2010 on the file of the Endowments Tribunal.
8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
3rd September, 2014 Js.