SAPPA PARVATHI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, and the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent - Wakf Board.

(2.) The appellants are the petitioners in a writ petition, which was disposed of as per the impugned order. They also challenge the order in I.A.No.4 of 2018 in W.P.No.34370 of 2018, which was filed after the disposal of the writ petition seeking clarification in relation to that order.

(3.) Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent-Wakf Board, we see that the controversy between the Wakf Board and the petitioners in relation to the subject matter of W.P.No.34370 of 2018 is apparently at crossroads in view of the fact that the Wakf Board has an interim order in the form of status quo in W.P.M.P.No.6545 of 2008 in W.P.No.5039 of 2008. This is what emanates out of the order in I.A.No.4 of 2018 in W.P.No.34370 of 2018.