A. R. LAKSHMANAN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri M. R. K. Choudhary, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri M. Adinarayana Raju, the learned Standing Counsel for Tirumala tirupati Devasthanam appearing for the 1st respondent. ( 2 ) THIS Writ Appeal is directed against the Order dated 19-12-2001 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing Writ Petition No. 25489 of 2001 on the ground that the facility of issuance of tickets in advance for Archananthara darshan/nijapada Seva Darshan is within the domain of the Temple administration and this Court cannot substitute its own opinion with that of the decision taken by the temple administration in matters of this nature. ( 3 ) WRIT Petition No. 25489 of 2001 was filed by Deccan Tourism Corporation, a partnership firm and B. S. Narayana Murthy, a pilgrim of the schedule package tour organized by Deccan Tourisum corporation, Seeking for the following relief:". . . . . . . . . . . . . . TO issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in refusing to sell the archana Anantara Darshan Tickets in favour of the pilgrims/tourists covered by package tours organized by the 1st petitioner herein while allowing the respondent No. 2 to purchase the archana Anantara Darshan Tickets orie day in advance to facilitate the tourists covered by tour programmes organized by the respondent No. 2 and in entering agreements with Tamil nadu Tourism Development corporation to sell Archana Anantra darshan Tickets for the benefit of the tours covered by tour programmes organized by the respondent No. 3 as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequentially to direct the 1st respondent to permit the 1st petitioner to purchase the Archana anantara Darshan Tickets one day in advance for the benefit of the tourists covered by packaged tours to tirupati/tirumala organized by the 1st petitioner. " ( 4 ) THE petitioners on an earlier occasion also filed Writ Petition No. 22085 of 2000 for the same relief, which was disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioners dated 8-8-2000. In pursuance of the said direction, the 1st respondent rejected the above representation by order dated 9-1-2001. But, strangely, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition no. In pursuance of the said direction, the 1st respondent rejected the above representation by order dated 9-1-2001. But, strangely, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition no. 25489 of 2001 for the aforementioned prayer without seeking the prayer to quash the said Order dated 9-1-2001 passed by the 1st respondent. As already stated above, the learned single Judge dismissed the Writ petition by the Order under appeal. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the petitioners- appellants that the reasoning given by the 1st respondent-Devasthanam rejecting their request does not appear to be sound and classification of the pilgrims into two categories, viz. , those who got recommendation letters and those who did not have such recommendation letters, is contrary to the equality clause enshrined in the Constitution of India. ( 6 ) IT is contended by the learned senior counsel that there cannot be any classification of tourists or pilgrims with reference to the organization, who organized the tour programme and in collecting money by each of the tour organizers if there is any tax to be collected, there can be discrimination by the State or by the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam with reference to the nature of the organization. The learned Senior counsel would argue that the action of the 1st respondent is totally irrational. ( 7 ) THE 1st respondent-Devasthanam has filed a counter-affidavit in the Writ Appeal denying the~allegations made by the petitioners-appellants in their affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. It is, inter alia, stated in the counter-affidavit that the tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam provided the facility of issuing Archana Anantara darshan Tickets only for the first time to a maximum of 100 per day depending upon the availability at usual rate of Rs. It is, inter alia, stated in the counter-affidavit that the tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam provided the facility of issuing Archana Anantara darshan Tickets only for the first time to a maximum of 100 per day depending upon the availability at usual rate of Rs. 100/- per head to the Andhra Pradesh Tourism since july, 2000, that the 1st petitioner-appellant is a private Tourism Corporation and hence, it cannot be compared with the Andhra pradesh Tourism Development corporation, that if the Archana Anantara darshan Tickets are also issued to the private agencies, the pilgrims waiting for general free Darshan will be greatly affected, that the said facility was not extended to any other organization either in public sector or in private sector except APTDC, that there is no pick and choose policy in issuing limited number of Archana Anantara darshan Tickets to the 2nd respondent and that no concessional rate is being given to the 2nd respondent. ( 8 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-Devasthanam vehemently submits that only a limited number of tickets and that too depending upon the availability of the same will be issued to the 2nd respondent and the same cannot be treated as sub-classification among the pilgrims and that no discrimination is shown by the tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam in issuing archana Anantara Darshan Tickets to the 2nd respondent. ( 9 ) WE have carefully considered the submissions of both sides with reference to the pleadings and also the materials filed by either side. ( 10 ) IN our opinion, the petitioners- appellants are not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the Writ Petition as a matter of right. The facility of issuance of tickets in advance for Archana Anantara Darshan/ nijapada Seva Darshan is within the domain of the temple administration, and, therefore, this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India cannot substitute its own opinion with that of the decision taken by the temple administration in matters like the present one. The fundamental rights of the appellants are not affected in any way by the impugned action of the 1st respondent. The fundamental rights of the appellants are not affected in any way by the impugned action of the 1st respondent. It has been specifically denied by the 1st respondent in its counter-affidavit the contention of the petitioners that Archana anantara Darshan Tickets were being issued only to the organizers in public sector organizations and later such facility was made available to such organizations under respective Tourism Corporations of other states viz. , Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and kerala. The 1st respondent also stated that only a limited number of tickets are being issued to the 2nd respondent, depending upon the availability for the first time since july, 2000, and that there is no pick and choose policy in issuing the limited number of Archana Anantara Darshan Tickets to the 2nd respondent. ( 11 ) LEARNED senior counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that the 2nd appellant has suffered injury due to the conduct of the 1st respondent in refusing to give Archana Anantara Darshan Ticket and the right to equal treatment is denied offending Article 14 of the Constitution of india. The said submission, in our opinion, has no force. ( 12 ) IT is incorrect to allege that the action of the 1st respondent in this regard is arbitrary and amounts to offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As already noticed, there is no pick and choose policy in issuing limited number of Archana anantara Darshan Tickets to the 2nd respondent and they will be issued depending upon the availability and that there is no concessional rate given to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the allegations of the appellants are untenable and incorrect. This apart, limited number of tickets is prescribed for the said facility and the same is made available to the pilgrims not only by advance reservation, but also by current bookings. In our opinion, the policy of current booking/advance booking in issuing Archana Anantara Darshan reservation tickets to a limited pilgrims was within the domain, jurisdiction and authority of the temple administration and it was made for the smooth running of day to day rituals, sevas and darshans and there is no discrimination as alleged by the appellants. Thus, in our opinion, providing facility of issuing limited Archana Anantara darshan Tickets in advance and that too depending upon the availability, at usual rate of Rs. Thus, in our opinion, providing facility of issuing limited Archana Anantara darshan Tickets in advance and that too depending upon the availability, at usual rate of Rs. 100/- to the 2nd respondent, is a reasonable classification and not irrational and also would not offend Article 14 of the constitution of India. Therefore, in our opinion, the decision of the 1st respondent- tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam is perfectly valid and legal and is in accordance withlaw; therefore, the same cannot be assailed on any legal ground. There are no merits in the Writ Appeal. ( 13 ) THE Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.