G. Rajendranath Goud vs Mudumba Varada Charyulu
2021 Latest Caselaw 311 Tel

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                                   AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY


                  WRIT APPEAL No. 23 OF 2017

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)


1.    The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 19.08.2016 passed

by the learned Single Judge dismissing an application moved by him

seeking impleadment as the respondent No.5 in W.P.No.24135 of

2016 and W.P.M.P.No.29735 of 2016 holding that the respondent

No.4/Temple is already represented by the Executive Officer and

merely because the appellant is a founder family member, it does not

make him a necessary party.

2. Mrs. N.Shoba, learned counsel for the appellant states that the

appellant is aggrieved by the aforesaid order for the reason that the

respondent No.2/Revenue (Endowments) Department is not

contesting the writ petition effectively and even a counter affidavit has

not been filed by the respondent No.5/Assistant Commissioner and

Executive Officer so far.

3. Mr. Kotha Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel

appears for the respondent No.5.

4. Mr. Vijay Prakash, learned counsel for the respondents No.2

and 3 assures this Court that the respondent No.5 shall be directed to

file a counter affidavit within one week.

5. In view of the aforesaid assurance given by learned counsel for

the respondents No.2 and 3, learned counsel for the appellant states

that the appeal may be disposed of.

6. While binding learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3

to the assurance given to the Court, as recorded above, and directing

that the counter affidavit shall be filed by the respondent No.5 in the

writ petition within one week from today, the present appeal is

disposed of along with the pending applications, if any.

_____________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

05.02.2021 Lur