THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 7874 OF 2008 O R D E R: Sri Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, the 2nd respondent herein, conducted auction on 5.3.2008, to award the leasehold rights to run Canteen No.2. The petitioner, 3rd respondent, and certain others, have participated in the auction. The 3rd respondent quoted Rs.25,000/- and the petitioner Rs.24,800/-. The former emerged as the ﬁrst highest bidder and the latter, as second highest bidder. The petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent cannot be awarded the lease, in view of condition No.14 of the tender notice. The condition is to the eﬀect that any persons, who are involved in the litigation with the Devasthanam, shall not be entitled to participate in the auction. The petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent ﬁgured as plaintiﬀ No.6 in O.S.No.403 of 2007, on the ﬁle of the Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam, filed against the Devasthanam. The 3rd respondent ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit, stating that he did not incur any disqualiﬁcation to participate in the auction, and the plea raised by the petitioner, cannot be accepted in law. It is stated that a citizen cannot be denied the right to pursue legal remedies, and mere ﬁling of the suit cannot be a factor, disentitling him from being awarded the contract, once he is emerged as highest bidder. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments, learned Standing Counsel for Devasthanam, and learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The petitioner admits that the 3rd respondent is the highest bidder and that he ﬁgured next to him. In the ordinary course of things, the lease has to be awarded in favour of 3rd respondent. In the auction notice, dated 22.2.2008, the Devasthanam incorporated several conditions. Condition No.14 is to the eﬀect that the persons, who are litigating with the Devasthanam, shall not be entitled to participate in the auction. It is a matter of record that the 3rd respondent, along with 5 others, ﬁled O.S.No.403 of 2007, against the Devasthanam, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of an item of immovable property. Obviously not being aware of this fact, the Devasthanam did not object for the participation of the 3rd respondent, in the auction. However, once it is emerged that the 3rd respondent is a litigant, against the Devasthanam, the lease cannot be granted in favour of the former, in view the prohibition contained in condition No.14 of the notice. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, holding that the 3rd respondent is not entitled to be awarded the lease, notwithstanding the fact that he emerged as highest bidder. It shall be open to the 2nd respondent Devasthanam, to take further steps for awarding the lease afresh, for Canteen No.2. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ 18th September 2008 PAN