THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.587 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Jagan Mohan Reddy Kotha, learned
counsel for the appellant; Mr. Raj Kumar Rudra, learned
counsel for respondent No.1; and Mr. M.Vijay Prakash,
learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondents No.2 to 4.
2. This writ appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.07.2022 passed in W.P.No.20045 of 2022 filed by respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner.
3. The impugned order was challenged in W.A.No.557 of 2022 filed by respondents No.5 and 6 (B.Prasad and B.Narsimlu Goud). By order dated 30.08.2022, the said writ appeal was dismissed in the following terms:
"5. We have carefully gone through the order of the Government of Telangana, Revenue (Endowments-II) Department, dated 16.12.2021, more particularly, paragraph 5 thereof, which reads as follows:2
Therefore, Government after careful examination of the matter hereby agree with the proposal of the C.E.D for extension of lease/license period for a total of 292 days (21-03-2020 - 08-06- 2020 and 09-06-2020 to 10-10-2020 (202 days) and 01-04-21 to 30-06-21 (90 days) for which temples were closed and Poojas/Sevas suspended for devotees as there was sharp fall in the visits of the devotees and negligible business activity in various major temples due to Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown imposed by Government of India/Government of Telangana.
6. This was considered by the original Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad (respondent No.3) whereafter, he had directed Executive Officer of the said Temple to take necessary action so that there should not be any revenue loss to the Temple.
We find that the lease period of the appellants had expired on 31.03.2022. Prima facie, there is no material on record to suggest grant of extension of the lease period to the appellants beyond 31.03.2022. This is what learned Single Judge also held.
7. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that appellants have filed an interlocutory application for vacating stay.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the interim order was passed after filing of counter-affidavit by the appellants.
39. Be that as it may, having regard to the nature of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are not inclined to entertain the appeal. It would be open to the appellants to pursue the interlocutory application filed before the learned Single Judge. Any observations made either in the order dated 26.07.2022 as well as those made today while passing the present order would not come in the way of the learned Single Judge while considering the interlocutory application as well as while taking a decision on the writ petition on merit.
10. Subject to the above, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs."
4. In view of the above decision, the present writ appeal is also dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 13.09.2022 vs