THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 6076 of 2006 Oral order: Pursuant to the auction notice issued by respondent No.5- Devasthanam, for sale of vacant land in an extent of Ac.0.59 cents, T.S. No. 1934, Srikakulam Town, the petitioner and 33 others participated in the auction conducted on 20.05.2003 by paying EM.D. of Rs.1,00,000/- each. The petitioner states that he having quoted Rs.615/- Sq. yd. was declared as the highest bidder, and thereupon, as desired by respondent No.5, he paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 24.05.2003. Later, respondent No.2, namely the Commissioner of Endowments, vide his proceedings dated 05.09.2003 confirmed the sale in his favour. However, the petitioner states that despite he having been declared as the highest bidder, and he having paid the entire amount and despite respondent No.2 confirming the auction in his favour, respondent No.5 has not executed the sale deed in his favour. However, he states that he was surprised to see a paper notification dated 18.03.2006, issued by respondent No.5, purportedly in pursuance of the orders of cancellation of the auction, issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 1693, dated 16.10.2004 and the order of Commissioner of Endowments dated 11.11.2004. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition questioning the said paper notification, and the orders issued by the Government in the above G.O. and the orders of the Commissioner of Endowments contending that even though he is the highest bidder, no notice whatsoever was issued before issuing the said orders canceling the auction, which was confirmed in his favour. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire auction proceedings stood concluded upon respondent No.2 confirming the auction in his favour, and that being so, based on the complaint lodged by one of the participants in the auction, respondent No.1 could not have issued orders in G.O. Ms. No.1693, dated 16.10.2004, canceling the auction in his favour, so also the consequential proceedings issued by respondent No.2 cancelling the auction, and more so without issuing any notice to him, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, he submitted that the impugned orders of cancellation of the auction issued by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be set aside and consequently the fresh paper notification for sale of land also be set aside and respondent No.5 be directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. This Court by order dated 20.04.2006, while admitting the writ petition, granted interim suspension of the impugned orders. To vacate the said orders, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and respondent No.5 filed separate W.V.M.Ps. supported by counter-affidavits. Reiterating the counter averments, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5, submitted that after the auction was confirmed in favour of respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner, when the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments, Multi Zone-I, Kakinada, was on his camp at Srikakulam, he received a complaint dated 24.10.2003 stating that the rate secured in the auction held on 20.05.2003 in respect of the land in question, was very low, and that one person by name D.V. Appala Naidu had offered to purchase the same by paying Rs.1,50,000/- more than what the highest bidder, namely the petitioner has agreed, and based on the said complaint, an enquiry was conducted, and since it came to light that the land in question was sold at a low price, he recommended for cancellation of the auction. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Government, which treated the matter as an appeal under Section 80(5) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. The Government after calling for a report from the Special Officer, vide orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 1693, dated 16.10.2004, cancelled the auction, and pursuant thereto, respondent No. 2 also issued proceedings dated 11.11.2004 cancelling the auction that was confirmed in favour of the petitioner, and no exception can be taken thereto. Hence, they prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Responding to the enquiry report, based on which the impugned cancellation was done, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and that no notice whatsoever was issued before canceling the auction even though he is the highest bidder. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for respondent No.5. Though the learned Government Pleader for Endowments justified the impugned G.O. issued by the Government canceling the auction as confirmed by respondent No.2 contending that under Section 80(6) of the Endowments Act, the Government has the power to call for an examine the record of the Commissioner in respect of any order passed by him to satisfy themselves as to the legality or correctness of such order or regularity or propriety thereof, and if any case it appears to the Government that such order should be modified, annulled, reserved or remitted for reconsideration, they may pass such order accordingly, the fact remains, the proviso appended thereto states that the Government shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party unless he had an opportunity of making his representation. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner is the highest bidder and the auction in his favour was confirmed by respondent No.2, and before any order, as provided under Section 80(6) of the Endowments Act, was to be passed by the Government, against the petitioner, he was required to be given an opportunity of making representation. However, a perusal of the enquiry reports placed by the learned Government Pleader for Endowments before this Court, based on which respondent No.1 issued orders in the impugned G.O. canceling the auction that was confirmed in favour of the petitioner, would disclose that even though the petitioner is the highest bidder in the auction no notice whatsoever was issued either calling upon him to participate in the enquiry or calling upon him to show cause as to why the auction that was confirmed in his favour should not be cancelled. Thus, it is clear that without providing any opportunity to the petitioner to make representation, the respondents conducted enquiry and based on such enquiry reports cancelled the auction confirmed in his favour by reason of the orders impugned in the writ petition. Since no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner before issuing the impugned orders canceling the auction confirmed in his favour, they cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside, and having regard to the power of the Government under Section 80(6) of the Endowments Act, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The impugned orders, passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No.1, namely the Principal Secretary to Government, for consideration of the matter afresh, and passing appropriate orders after providing opportunity to the petitioner to make representation as provided under the proviso appended to Section 80(6) of the Endowments Act. Respondent No.1 shall furnish copies of the enquiry reports to the petitioner, to enable the petitioner to make proper representation. After taking into consideration, the representation, if any, to be filed by the petitioner, respondent No.1 shall take appropriate decision in the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 29th June, 2009 KSR