Sri Soneswara Swamy Temple Committee, v. The State Of Telangana,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.23880 of 2016 DATED : 08.08.2016 Between:

Sri Soneswara Swamy Temple Committee, (Regd.No.747 of 2016), Masid Banda, Kondapur, Serlingampally Ranga Reddy, Rep., by its Secretary B.Shivraj Goud & others .. Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, (Home Dept.), Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others.

.. Respondents The Court made the following:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.23880 of 2016 ORDER:

Petitioners filed this writ petition praying to grant the following relief : "to declare the inaction of the respondent No.2 in not registering FIR and not taking action against the respondents 3 to 8 pursuant to complaint dated 30.04.2016 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 21 and 26 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent No.2 to take action against the respondents 3 to 8."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2.

3. Learned Government Pleader produced written instructions furnished to him by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad.

4. A reading of the written instructions would disclose that there are two rival groups claiming ownership of the temple property. The two groups have separate registered Societies claiming to own the temple. It appears that there were some disputes which necessiated the revenue authorities as well as police to interfere in pacifying the rival groups and ultimately temple locks and keys were handed over to B.Lingam Goud-2nd petitioner herein.

5. The written instructions also disclose that after the complaint dated 30.04.2016 the matter was investigated. It is also stated that a rival complaint is also received. However, having gone through the contents of the complaints no cognizable offence is brought to the notice of the police and that it is purely civil dispute between two rival groups.

6. Having regard to the statement made in the written instructions that locks and keys were handed over to the 2nd petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the present the petitioners are satisfied with the steps taken by the 2nd respondent.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the rival claims and not recorded any finding on merits. It is open to the respective parties to work out their remedies as available in law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand

closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 8th August, 2016 Rds