M.Suresh Kumar, v. State Of Telangana, Rep By Its Principal Secretary,

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT W.P.No.33964 of 2014 PC: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged G.O.Rt.No.159 dated 12.02.2014 by which the Government has constituted a Board of Trustees to manage Sri Jogulamba Bala Brahmeshwaraswamy Temple, Alampur Village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, which according to the petitioner is contrary to Section 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner has also prayed for direction to the 1st respondent to appoint eligible persons as Trustees to the Board of Trustees. The petition is mainly directed against respondents 5 to 8.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties for some time. Mr.L.Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, does not press the writ petition against respondents 5, 6 and 8 and submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the name of respondent No.7 is deleted from the Board of Trustees, who, according to him, has acquired disqualification to remain and continue to be a Member of Board of Trustees under Section 19 (1) (c) of the Act.

Mr.D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for respondents 5 to 8, on

instructions, submits that respondent No.7 is not desirous of continuing as a Member of Board of Trustees and she informed accordingly to the Government that her name may be deleted from the Board of Trustees. He submits that, irrespective of the fact that whether or not her name is deleted from the Board of Trustees by the Government, she undertakes that she shall not attend meetings of Board of Trustees henceforth or act as Trustee any more. Statement made on her behalf by the learned Senior Counsel is recorded and accepted.

In view thereof, the name of respondent No.7 from the Board of Trustees is directed to be deleted. Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 did not object to this order. In the circumstances, writ petition is disposed of as not pressed against respondent Nos.5, 6 and 8, and so far as respondent No.7 is concerned, in view of the order passed on the basis of the statement made by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of respondent No.7, the writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, also stand disposed of.

_____________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ ___________________ S.V.BHATT, J Date: 11.06.2015 Stp/Lrkm