HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12524 of 2010 4th June 2010 Between: Kesana Kameswara Rao … PETITIONER(S) and State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Revenue [Endowments (IV)], Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others … RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12524 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.4. At their request the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s representation for extension of lease for the year 2010-11 as compensation for the loss sustained by him during the year 2009-10. The 4th respondent temple owns a tank admeasuring Acs.4-97 cents in Isukapalli Village, Repalle Mandal, Guntur District. Auction was held for grant of leasehold rights for fishing in the said tank on 20.05.2009. The petitioner was the highest bidder having bid at Rs.36,100/-. It is his case that he took possession of the tank and effected repairs spending huge amounts; the floods, which occurred in the first week of October, 2009, caused breach of the bund resulting in the entire fish seed and water in the tank being washed away; he submitted a representation dated 23.02.2010 to the respondent-temple requesting to enquire into the loss sustained by him and grant financial help; the said representation was forwarded to the Inspector of Endowments, Repalle, for enquiry; and the Inspector of Endowments submitted his report dated 10.05.2010 informing the 3rd respondent that the bund of tank was breached and the entire fish was washed out. The petitioner’s grievance is that, despite the report submitted by the Inspector of Endowments, no action has been taken by the authorities for grant of extension and that, in the interregnum, they had issued a notification for public auction of the fishing rights. The Andhra Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Immovable Properties And Other Right (Other Than Agricultural) Leases And Licenses Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as – ‘the Rules’), made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 82 read with Section 153(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30/87), are statutory in character. Rule 3 of the 2003 Rules prescribes that all lease or licenses shall be made by way of public auction. It enables the Commissioner, on a request being made in writing by the executive authority, to grant lease otherwise than by way of public auction if he is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the interest of the institution or endowment will not suffer thereby. It is only in such a case is the Commissioner empowered to grant permission to the executive authority to grant lease otherwise than by public auction. The proviso to Rule 3 imposes two conditions. Firstly, the executive authority must seek permission of the Commissioner and, secondly, such a request for grant of lease, otherwise then by way of public auction, is in the interest of the institution. It is not even the petitioner’s case that extension of lease for the year 2010-11, as sought for by him, is in the interest of the institution. It is his grievance that failure to do so would be detrimental to his interest. That is not what the Rule prescribes. Further Rule 15 of the 2003 Rules specifies that any lease or licence granted, continued or allowed to be continued otherwise than in accordance with the rules, shall be null and void. The normal method, prescribed by these 2003 Rules, for grant of leasehold/licence rights is by way of public auction and not otherwise. The petitioner’s request that he be granted extension of lease, without requiring him to participate in the public auction on the ground that he suffered loss thereby, would fall foul of the Rules aforementioned. His request that the representation submitted by him be considered and that a direction be issued by this Court to the respondents in this regard does not merit acceptance in as much as the authorities can only be called upon to act in accordance with law and not contrary thereto. The 2003 Rules is the law governing the field and, since these Rules prescribes public auction as the method for grant of leasehold/licence rights, I see no reason to accede to the petitioner’s request that his representation be considered by the authorities. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 4th June 2010 CVRK HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12524 of 2010 4th June 2010 CVRK