THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.23180 of 2014 Dated : 13.08.2014 Between:
Vadakattu China Satyanarayana, S/o Ramaiah, Business, 50 yrs., R/o D.No.4/9-10, Main Bazar, Giddalur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District.
.. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments-IV) Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and two others .. Respondents This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.23180 of 2014 ORDER :
The petitioner claims to have booked in advance for provision of ‘Arjitha Seva’ to be performed by his family members in the year 2006 and on payment of requisite money, tickets were issued to him and the date of performance of pooja was on 19.08.2014. Abruptly, the second respondent cancelled the said tickets vide proceedings dated 12.08.2011 and the amount paid by the petitioner was refunded to him.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that before canceling the tickets, he was not given any opportunity of being heard and no notice was served on him. Since for no fault of the petitioner, the Arjitha Seva tickets were cancelled, he should atleast be given some priority in performing some other pooja immediately. Since the Devastanam authorities have not reacted favourably, the petitioner is compelled to institute this writ petition.
3. As seen from the proceedings dated 12.08.2011, Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam noticed that group of people blocked various sevas in the temple on fictitious names depriving the actual devotees in participating in the sevas, and that they were selling those tickets to innocent public at higher rates. It was also noticed that the petitioner blocked several Arjitha Seva tickets for several years by mentioning the addresses of some third parties. Hence, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 14.05.2011 calling upon him to show cause as to why the Arjitha Seva tickets issued to him should not be cancelled. The petitioner did not respond to the said show cause notice. Hence, the second respondent issued the proceedings dated 12.08.2011 cancelling the Arjitha Seva tickets.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the amount paid by the petitioner for Arjitha Seva tickets was refunded to him and that the petitioner did not protest against such cancellation of tickets when the notice was issued to him or subsequently, when the impugned proceedings are issued and that he instituted this writ petition after three years of cancellation of tickets.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the writ petition is instituted now since the Arjitha Seva tickets booked by him in the year 2006 are due now i.e., on 19.08.2014 and that on several occasions, the request made by the petitioner was not acceded to by the respondent-Devasthanam. Hence, the petitioner is compelled to institute the present writ petition at this stage.
6. It is not in dispute that the Arjitha Seva tickets booked by the petitioner were cancelled and the amount paid by him was refunded. Since the petitioner has received the amount and has not protested such cancellation in the year 2011, it is not open to him to challenge the said proceedings at this stage, and no priority can be given to him to perform some other pooja. The issue of earlier booking of seva has attained finality on account of the proceedings issued by the competent authority on 12.08.2011. Once that has become final, the petitioner also stands on par with other devotees and he has to follow the same procedure for booking the Arjitha Seva. Merely because at one point of time, the petitioner booked tickets for Arjitha Seva, he cannot have any priority consideration for performing some other poojas at this stage. I see no merit in this Writ Petition.
7. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date : 13.08.2014 ssp