HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7813 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. At their request, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner claims to be in continuous possession of a vacant site near Elephant Mandapam belonging to the 2nd respondent-Temple ever since the year 2000. She also claims to have invested huge amounts and to have raised a zinc shed at a cost of Rs.25,000/-. She also claims to have obtained an electricity connection from the 2nd respondent-Devasthanam which is said to be collecting minimum electricity charges from her. The petitioner claims to have made an application to the 2nd respondent requesting that she be continued in the premises. The 1st respondent, by proceedings dated 07.06.2002, accorded permission for a period of three years from 01.06.2002 to 31.05.2005 at a monthly rent of Rs.1200/- PM. Thereafter, the period of lease is said to have been extended from 01.06.2005 to 31.05.2008 at an enhanced rent of Rs.1600/- P.M, which is 33% over and above the previous rent of Rs.1200/- P.M. as rent till date. While matters stood thus, the petitioner received a notice on 14.10.2009 calling upon her to vacate the site. Neither is a copy of the said proceedings filed along with the writ petition nor has the petitioner chosen to state the date by which she was called upon to vacate the premises. The fact, however, remains that, ever since 01.06.2008, the petitioner continues to remain in unauthorized occupation of the premises in question. The 2nd respondent issued the impugned auction notification on 27.03.2010 informing the general public that a public auction will be held on 12.04.2010 for grant of leasehold rights for the shop in question. Apprehending that she would be thrown out once the auction process is complete, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, would rely on Circular No.39/83 dated 22.12.1983, whereunder the sitting tenant was entitled for continuance of lease on enhancement of rent of 25%. It is necessary to note that the said Circular dated 22.12.1983 was issued under the 1966 Act and is much prior to the date on which the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30/1987) came into force. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 82 read with Section 153(1) of Act 30/1987, the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Immovable Properties and Other Rights (other than Agricultural Lands) Leases and Licenses Rules, 2003 (for short ’the 2003 Rules’) were made. Rule 3 of the 2003 Rules provides that all leases or licenses shall be made by way of public auction except if the Commissioner is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the interest of the institution or endowment would not suffer if lease of a property is made otherwise than by way of public auction. The Rules also provide the manner and the place at which the auction is required to be held. Rule 12(2) prescribes the authority competent to confirm or reject the lease or licence. Rule 12(3) provides that no lease or licence shall be valid unless it is approved by the Competent Authority. Rule 14(1) requires all lease deeds or deeds of licence be obtained in writing and to be registered. Rule 15 provides that any lease or licence continued, or allowed to be continued, otherwise than in accordance with the Rules, shall be null and void. The 2003 Rules are Statutory Rules. Where the field is governed by statutory rules, executive instructions issued earlier, and which contrary to such Rules, must yield and give way. It is not as if the petitioner is prohibited from participating in the auction proposed to be held on 12.04.2010. Merely on the ground that she is willing to pay enhanced rent of 33%, the petitioner is not entitled to continue to retain possession of the property belonging to the 2nd respondent. The relief sought for in the Writ Petition cannot be granted. Leaving it open to the petitioner, if she so chooses to participate in the auction proposed to be held on 12.04.2010, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Date: 08.04.2010 ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J PNB/MRKR