IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 14832 of 2009 Between: T. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Paravathalu, Hindu, R/o. H.No. 5-316, Dwaraka Nagar, Mangalagiri Village & Manda Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-II, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur, Guntur District. 3 The Executive Officer, Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Mangalagiri Village & Mandal, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any Appropriate Writ by declaring the Impugned Public Notice issued by the Third Respondent Dated 15.07.2009 for Conducting Public Auction on 27-07-2009 for the lease hold rights of selling Coconuts, Flowers, Tulasi malas etc., is illegal and Violation of Principles of natural justice, and in appropriate under Humanitarian grounds, and to declare the inaction of the Third respondent in not taking appropriate action on the Complaint of the Petitioner dated 15-10-2008 in not controlling the Other persons from selling the same items contrary to condition No.5 of the Public Auction Notice, is illegal Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SATYANARAYANA MOORTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner assert that in pursuance of the Public Auction Notice dated 20.07.2008 issued by the 3rd respondent proposing to conduct auction of leasehold rights for selling coconuts, books, photos, flowers, tulasimala, at Diguva Sannidhi of Sri Lakshmi Narsaimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Mangalagiri, Guntur District from 12.08.2008 to 11.08.2009, the petitioner participated in the auction and stood as the highest bidder, and the 2nd respondent, by letter dated 24.12.2008, approved leasehold rights in favour of the petitioner. While so, the 3rd respondent, contrary to Condition No.5 of the Notice, allowed outsiders to sell the commodities. Then, the petitioner made representation, dated 15.10.2008 to the 3rd respondent requesting him not to allow outsiders to sell commodities contrary to Condition No.5 stipulated in the Notice. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 3rd respondent, without considering his representation, issued the impugned Public Auction Notice dated 15.07.2009 proposing to conduct auction on 27.7.2009 of the leasehold rights by allowing outsiders to sell the commodities for the period from 12.08.2009 to 11.08.2010. Hence, he filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the impugned Auction Notice dated 15.07.2009. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents and perused the material placed on record. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted leasehold rights for selling the commodities at Diguva Sannidhi of Sri Lakshmi Narsaimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Mangalagiri, Guntur District for the period from 12.08.2008 to 11.08.2009. The petitioner contends that even though the period for which he was granted leasehold rights is in force, the 3rd respondent, in violation of Condition No.5 of the Notice, issued the impugned Auction Notice dated 15.07.2009 by allowing some outsiders to sell the commodities, against the petitioner’s leasehold rights. Having regard to the contention of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner, having been granted leasehold rights in the Auction Notice dated 20.07.2008 for the leasehold rights for the period from 12.08.2008 to 11.08.2009, should have taken necessary steps to prevent the outsiders / third parties from selling the commodities, and in case he failed to control selling of those items by third parties, he should have filed civil suit and obtained injunction orders or made a complaint to the police against those persons who are allegedly selling the commodities in violation of Condition No.5 of the Notice, but the petitioner, without availing appropriate remedies available to him under law cannot invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I see no merits in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedies available to him under law. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 24th July, 2009 bcj