HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.2867 of 2010 Date: February 10, 2010 Between: Sri K.V.V. Satyanarayana, S/o.K.Venkata Subbaiah, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Kavali, Nellore District … Petitioner And Superintending Engineer-III, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, A.D.Building, K.T. Road, Tirupathi-517 501, Chittoor District, and another … Respondents Order: The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring proceedings Roc.No.C2/259/EEVI/VJA-2005, dated 06-01-2010, issued by the second respondent, Executive Engineer-VI, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, as illegal and arbitrary. The Kalyanamandapam, situated at Malakonda in Prakasam District, which belongs to Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, was put to auction for grant of licence to run the same, initially, for a period of two years commencing from 28-01-2006. The petitioner, who was the highest bidder in the said auction, was issued sanctioned orders vide proceedings dated 28-01-2006. The said licence was further extended in favour of the petitioner for a period of two years vide proceedings dated 03-06-2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he made a request, by way of representation, to the first respondent on 28-07-2009, seeking further extension of licence, no orders have been passed and, on the other hand, the second respondent has issued the impugned proceedings directing him to handover the Kalyanamandapam and not to book the same beyond 09-02-2010. A perusal of the proceedings dated 06-01-2010, issued by the second respondent, would indicate that the licence period has expired by 09-02-2010 and therefore the petitioner was asked to handover possession and instructed not to book the Kalyanamandapam beyond 09-02-2010. As much as it is not in dispute that licence period has expired by 09-02-2010, it cannot be said that the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent is illegal. However, as it is stated that the petitioner has submitted representation dated 28-07-2009 for extension of licence, well in advance, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent to consider the said representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, if not already passed, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J February 10, 2010 MRR