IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23347 of 2011 Between: P. Nageswara Rao … Petitioner And Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Board, Rep., by its Chairman, Tiurpati, Chittoor District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri C. Raghu Counsel for the respondents: Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23347 of 2011 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings Roc.No.705/AEE-I/SE-III/2007, dated 10.06.2011, of respondent No.3, whereby he has declined the petitioner’s request for renewal of licence granted to him for running a Kalyanamandapam at Pitapuram. The petitioner is granted licence for running TTD Kalyanamandapam at Pitapuram in terms of agreement, dated 30.12.2008. When the petitioner’s application for renewal of the licence was not considered, he has filed Writ Petition No.7075 of 2011 for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in considering his request for renewal of licence as illegal and arbitrary. This Court has disposed of the said Writ Petition by order, dated 18.03.2011, with a direction to respondent No.3 to dispose of the petitioner’s application in terms of the special conditions of licence. In pursuance of the said direction, respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order, whereby he has stated that the petitioner’s request for renewal of licence is not considered and that it was decided to take back the Kalyanamandapam. Assailing this order, the present Writ Petition is filed. At the hearing, Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that while rejecting the petitioner’s request for renewal of licence, no reasons have been assigned and such rejection is arbitrary. No counter affidavit is filed. Sri Y.V. Raviprasad, learned Standing counsel, stated that under condition No.2 of the special conditions of licence, the respondents have discretion not to renew the licence. I have carefully considered condition No.2 of the special conditions of licence, which reads as under: “The license period shall be initially for two years and it can be renewed for another one or two years with annual increase of 33.3% excess over the existing good will amount agreed upon, if the Executive Officer, T.T.Devasthanams, Tirupati so desires. After expiry of 4 years license period, the Kalyanamandapam shall be deemed to have been vacated on expiry date.” Even though a discretion is vested in the respondents in the matter of renewal of licence, such a discretion needs to be exercised in a reasonable and rational manner. No reasons whatsoever have been assigned by respondent No.3 while exercising his discretion not to renew the licence. Therefore, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained in law and the same are accordingly set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s request for renewal of licence. In the event, he intends to reject the petitioner’s request for renewal, he shall state the reasons therefor and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Till a fresh order is passed, the petitioner shall be allowed to run the Kalyanamandapam. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, WPMP.No.28569 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 14.11.2011 ES