GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. G RAJENDRANATH GOUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order dated 25-6-1999, the writ petition was ordered to be posted along with CRP No.2037 of 1998 and accordingly both the revision petition as well as the writ petition are now posted before us. By this common order, we are disposing of both of them, since they involve common questions of facts and law.

(2.) CRP No.2037 of 1998 is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 16-12-1997 passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on his file in CMA No.261 of 1994. By this order, the appeal filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh was dismissed by confirming the order No.8 dated 12-9-1994 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments. It has to be noted at this stage itself that by the said order No. 8 dated 12-9-1994, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments has declared that the respondent No.1 in the revision petition G. Rajandernath Goud, s/o Jaganath Goud, was entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,000.00 as honorarium per month, being the hereditary trustee of the temple by name Sri Venkateshwara Swamy Devasthanam, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, made as respondent No.3 in the writ petition. It has also to be noted at this stage itself that neither before the Deputy Commissioner of, Endowments, nor before the appellate authority, this Devasthanam was a party. We have also noticed from the cause title of the revision petition that this temple is not made as one of the respondents.

(3.) The writ petition in WP No.26985 of 1998 is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not implementing the order dated 16-12-1997 passed in CMA No.261 of 1994, as illegal and void, which order is the subject matter in CRP No.2037 of 1998. In other words, the writ petition is filed for implementing the impugned orders in the revision petition. Therefore, the fate of the writ petition would depend upon the result in the revision petition. Hence, we propose to consider the revision petition first.