HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.33203 of 2011 Date: 16-12-2011 Between P.Madhav Reddy … Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Revenue) Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.33203 of 2011 Order: Heard Sri K.V.Subrahmanya Narusu, learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents 1 and 2; and Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent-Temple. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the notification issued by the 3rd respondent-Temple in R.C.No.A1/1566/2011, dated 05-12-2011, proposing to auction the lease hold rights insofar as items 9 and 10, which relate to shops (wooden boxes) to sell coffee, tea, cool drinks, soaps, fancy items etc. 3. Earlier, the 3rd respondent-Temple issued a notification dated 20-10-2011 for auctioning the lease hold rights of certain shops through Sealed Tender cum Public Auction/E-Tender. The petitioner was a successful bidder for shop No.28. He accordingly entered into an agreement with the 3rd respondent-Temple and established business to sell coffee, tea, cool drinks, soaps, fancy items etc. 4. The 3rd respondent-Temple issued the impugned notification dated 05-12-2011 inviting bids through Tender cum Public Auction/E- Tender to grant lease hold rights/leases of certain items including the two wooden boxes (items 9 and 10 of the notification) installed by the temple towards the western side of shop No.27 to sell coffee, tea, cool drinks, soaps, fancy items etc. 5. The petitioner has challenged the said notification by raising the following contentions: Firstly; The nature of business proposed to be conducted in item Nos.9 and 10 and the lease hold rights in respect of other items as per the notification are in the nature of private market, which the 3rd respondent-Temple is not entitled to open as it is opposed to Section 105 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. 6. According to the learned counsel, the items in respect of which the lease hold rights are sought to be auctioned amount to establishing private market, therefore, unless the 3rd respondent- Temple obtains permission from the Gram Panchayat, it is not entitled to auction the lease hold rights. 7. I am unable to accept the said contention. 8. A perusal of the notification dated 05-12-2011 shows that auction of lease hold rights is proposed to be granted to maintain a hotel, and other shops to supply shamianas, tables, chairs etc., to provide electrical decoration lights and flower decoration, procurement of dried coconuts from the temple, right to sell calendars, diaries, right to get income from the coconut trees, right to get income from banana plantation and sale of coffee, tea, cool drinks, fancy items etc. These are service-nature lease hold rights, which do not involve any marketing activity. The word ‘market’ has its own connotation and significance. The word ordinarily means, a place where sale and purchase of goods takes place and the same cannot be understood as covering activities, which merely render service activities. These activities may require trade licences by the shop keepers, but not a private market licencee. 9. It is nextly contended that the petitioner has established his business in shop No.28 in respect of which, he has obtained lease to sell coffee, tea, cool drinks, soaps, fancy items etc. Therefore, the 3rd respondent-Temple is not entitled to permit another shop for the same purpose. The petitioner states that he has obtained loan and established the shop for his livelihood and therefore, any additional shop for the same business would reduce his revenue, thereby affect his right to livelihood. 10. I am unable to accept the said contention. 11. Firstly; it may be noticed that the petitioner was not granted lease hold rights for shop No.28 for any specific purpose nor was any condition laid down requiring him to conduct business only to run tea- stall or fancy store. It was perfectly open to the petitioner to have established any business of his own choice. 12. Secondly; no promise has been made nor any assurance given by executing an agreement or otherwise that no additional shop would be allowed to operate at the temple for the same business. Therefore, the petitioner has neither legal right nor has he any privilege conferred on him as a monopolist by the temple. The 3rd respondent-Temple, therefore, is not estopped from granting any lease hold rights as per the impugned notification. 13. The petitioner, who has taken the premises to run business, is supposed to know the risk of business and the competition in the field. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to stay in the competition and keep himself afloat. He is not entitled to complain that because he will suffer reduced income, no other shop should be permitted to come up. It is not as if by virtue of the impugned notification, the petitioner has been deprived of his right to run the business as per the lease granted to him. 14. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the petitioner has no justification in opposing the impugned notification. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. 15. In view of disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.41261 2011 is dismissed as unnecessary. No costs. ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 16th December, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.33203 of 2011 16th December, 2011. (Ak)