CIVIL REVISION — ENDOWMENTS TRIBUNAL — INTERIM ORDER WITHOUT REASONS — SET ASIDE AND REMAND Endowments Law — Temple Service Rights — Archakhatvam Dispute — Interim Relief Dispute pertains to hereditary performance of Archakhatvam and other temple services in Sri Parupudi Kanaka Chintaiah Veeramma Thalli temple among members of Parupudi family. Earlier civil suit (O.S. No.18 of 1969) ended in compromise decree dated 22-09-1979 recognising rights of branches. Respondents filed O.A. No.78/2025 before Endowments Tribunal alleging obstruction and sought injunction (I.A. No.375/2025). High Court Direction for Expedited Disposal Ignored — Tribunal Granted Relief “Without Adjudicating on Merits” Tribunal passed order dated 13-11-2025 partly allowing I.A., directing respondents (R-2 to R-25) not to restrain applicants from exercising their legitimate rights/customs from 30-11-2025 to 24-01-2026. Tribunal expressly recorded that it was “constrained to partly allow this I.A. without adjudicating on merits.” Held, such admission itself sufficient to vitiate the order, since judicial or quasi-judicial orders must disclose reasoning. Interim Orders Must Record Consideration of Merits Per Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, where a Tribunal states that relief is granted without adjudicating merits, order is unsustainable. Order dated 13-11-2025 is therefore set aside. Remand with Directions Matter remanded to Endowments Tribunal to pass fresh, reasoned order after hearing both sides. Tribunal directed to dispose of matter within four weeks from receipt of High Court order given grievance of delay affecting respondents’ rights. Result Civil Revision Petition disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions closed. PROPOSITION FOR CITATION Where a quasi-judicial authority grants interim relief while expressly admitting that it has not adjudicated the merits, such order must be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration with reasons.

 CIVIL REVISION — ENDOWMENTS TRIBUNAL — INTERIM ORDER WITHOUT REASONS — SET ASIDE AND REMAND

1. Endowments Law — Temple Service Rights — Archakhatvam Dispute — Interim Relief

Dispute pertains to hereditary performance of Archakhatvam and other temple services in Sri Parupudi Kanaka Chintaiah Veeramma Thalli temple among members of Parupudi family. Earlier civil suit (O.S. No.18 of 1969) ended in compromise decree dated 22-09-1979 recognising rights of branches. Respondents filed O.A. No.78/2025 before Endowments Tribunal alleging obstruction and sought injunction (I.A. No.375/2025).

2. High Court Direction for Expedited Disposal Ignored — Tribunal Granted Relief “Without Adjudicating on Merits”

Tribunal passed order dated 13-11-2025 partly allowing I.A., directing respondents (R-2 to R-25) not to restrain applicants from exercising their legitimate rights/customs from 30-11-2025 to 24-01-2026. Tribunal expressly recorded that it was “constrained to partly allow this I.A. without adjudicating on merits.”

Held, such admission itself sufficient to vitiate the order, since judicial or quasi-judicial orders must disclose reasoning.

3. Interim Orders Must Record Consideration of Merits

Per Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, where a Tribunal states that relief is granted without adjudicating merits, order is unsustainable. Order dated 13-11-2025 is therefore set aside.

4. Remand with Directions

Matter remanded to Endowments Tribunal to pass fresh, reasoned order after hearing both sides. Tribunal directed to dispose of matter within four weeks from receipt of High Court order given grievance of delay affecting respondents’ rights.

5. Result

Civil Revision Petition disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

PROPOSITION FOR CITATION

Where a quasi-judicial authority grants interim relief while expressly admitting that it has not adjudicated the merits, such order must be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration with reasons.