The State Of Telangana And Another vs Sri Sri Jagadguru Shankaracharya ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 459 Tel

58

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

                                W.A.No.46 of 2021

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

     1.    The appellant/State is aggrieved by an interim order dated

     05.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge on I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of

     2020 filed by the respondents No.1 and 2/writ petitioners in

W.P.No.19598 of 2020.

2. In the interim application moved by the respondents No.1

and 2/writ petitioners, the prayer made was to restrain the Executive

Officer appointed by the appellant No.1 from interfering with the

day-to-day administration being conducted by the writ petitioners in

respect of Kanakadurga and Nagalakshmi Temple, Basheerbagh.

3. In the interim order, the learned Single Judge has observed that

the matter requires to be considered and heard finally after counter

affidavits are filed by the respondents and that there shall be an

interim suspension of appointment, as prayed for.

4. On enquiring from learned counsel for the appellants as to

whether the interim applications filed by the writ petitioners and the

vacate application filed by the respondents have been disposed of by

virtue of the impugned order, Mr.M.Vijay Prakash, learned

Government Pleader for Endowments concedes that the said

applications are still pending on the writ file.

5. In the above circumstances, we have requested learned counsel

for the appellants to address this Court on the maintainability of the

present appeal. Learned counsel has no explanation to offer. In our

opinion, once the interim stay applications as also the vacate

application are still pending, and furthermore, having regard to the

fact that the learned Single Judge has directed the respondents to file a

counter affidavit so as to hear the matter finally, we see no reason to

entertain the present appeal, which is even otherwise not

maintainable.

6. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as misconceived

and not maintainable along with the pending applications, if any, with

costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be deposited with

the High Court Legal Services Committee. The appellants are

cautioned to be more careful in future in preferring appeals, which, on

the face of it, are not maintainable.

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 17.02.2021 Lrkm/pln