The matter is coming up for Admission. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue had taken notice on behalf of 2nd respondent and Sri Adinarayana Rao had taken notice on behalf of 3rd respondent on 30.10.2009 and requested time to get instructions.

2. Sri Arun Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and would maintain that inasmuch as the 3rd respondent is a lessee under the Government and inasmuch as the 3rd respondent is discharging certain public functions, the writ petition is maintainable.

3. Sri Adinarayana Rao, the learned Counsel representing the 3rd respondent, however, had taken a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable and even if the petitioner is aggrieved of any such action since this may fall under dispute regarding management, the remedy if any may be under Section 23 of A.P. Societies Registration Act 2001 and the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.

4. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not calling for s