Mantri Pragada Lakshmana Rao vs The State Of Ap
2022 Latest Caselaw 1814 AP

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

                  WRIT PETITION No.23073 of 2020

JUDGMENT:-

1.   Heard Sri S.Satish Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri S.Sriram, learned Senior Advocate General/Advocate

General assisted by learned Government Pleader for Endowments

for respondent No.1.

2. This petition was filed for the following relief:-

"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it

is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court to issue an

appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in

nature of QUO WARANTO or any other appropriate Writ

against 2nd respondent calling upon him to quit from the office

Executive Officer cum Joint Commissioner of Respondent No.3

and fully additional charge as Regional Joint Commissioner

of Respondent No.6 since he is ineligible and disqualified to

hold the post of Executive Officer cum Joint Commissioner of

Respondent No.3 and fully additional charge as Regional

Joint Commissioner of Respondent No.6 being illegal,

contrary to A.P Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions

and Endowments Act, 1987 and Rule 3 of Rules issued in

G.O.Ms.No.245, Revenue (Endt.1), dated 08/05/2002 as

amended by G.O.Ms.590, Revenue (Endowments-1)

Department, dated 19/11/2018, discriminatory and violative

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India,

consequentially to set aside the said proceedings in G.O.RT.

No.497, dated 05/06/2020 and G.O.RT.No.613 Dated

31/07/2020 and pass such other order or orders may deem

fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest

of equity and justice."

3. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of the

respondent No.2, as Executive Officer, Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka

Swamy Devasthanam, Kanipakam, Chittor District, Andhra

Pradesh, by writ of quo waranto.

4. Learned Advocate General, Sri S.Sriram, Senior Advocate

assisted by learned Government Pleader for Endowments submits

that the order appointing the respondent No.2 as Executive Officer

challenged in the petition has been withdrawn by the Government

vide G.O.Rt.No.656, dated 16.04.2022, a copy of which has been

placed before the Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the

same.

6. In view of the aforesaid, the petition has been rendered

infructuous and is accordingly dismissed, however if the

respondent No.2 herein challenges the order dated 16.04.2022, he

shall in such proceedings disclose the orders passed in the present

writ petition.

No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,

shall also stand closed.

__________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J Date: 18.04.2022 SCS 11BbBBBBbB/BBB

74276446642446544455554646

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

WRIT PETITION No.23073 of 2020

Date: 18.04.2022

Scs