IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.28246 OF 2010 DATED:23.11.2010 Between: Sri Mallur Aswartha Narayana Reddy … Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by the Principal Secretary (Endowments) Revenue Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.28246 OF 2010 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has questioned the proceedings of the Commissioner of Endowments Department, dt.20.9.2010, issued in proceedings in Rc. No.N1\42050\2007, to the extent of rejecting the bid offered by the petitioner for the lands covered by Sy. Nos.167/5 and 168/2 admeasuring Ac.3.76 cents and Ac.0.17 cents respectively, situated at S. Gollapalli Village, Mylavaram Mandal, Kadapa District. The fourth respondent is a Math and is an institution governed under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”). On the proposal sent by the executive authority, the Commissioner of Endowments, by proceedings dt.1.1.2010, permitted the sale of the lands in public auction. For certain properties, the auction was conducted on 28.5.2010 and for other properties the auction was conducted on 29.5.2010, in the presence of the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Multi Zone-II, Tirupati and the Tahsildar, Land Protection Cell, Hyderabad, When the proposals have been sent for confirmation of auction, for the properties for which the auction was held on 29.5.2010, the Commissioner, by the impugned order, refused to confirm the auction to an extent of Ac.90.34 cents stating that though the bid fetched is more than the market value, but less when compared with the bid secured in the Tender-cum-Public auction held on 28.5.2010, as reported by the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Multi Zone-II, Tirupati. The petitioner is a bidder to the extent of the land covered by the survey numbers of which are referred to above. In this writ petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sale of immovable properties of the temple and alienation of immovable properties are governed by the Rules issued in G.O. Ms. No.644, dt.30.6.1989 and as per Rule 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Alienation of Immovable Property Rules, 1987 (for short, the Rules), the Commissioner is empowered to refuse sale only within a period of three months and inasmuch as he has not refused within three months, it is deemed to have been confirmed. The further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the rates of the land vary from land to land, having regard to the location, topography, fertility etc. In that view of the matter, it is not open for the respondents to refuse to confirm the bid, when it has fetched more than the market value. I have perused the Rules framed under Section 80 read with Section 153 of the Act. As per Rule 14 of the Rules, the Commissioner is empowered within three months from the date of auction either to confirm or refuse the same and such confirmation or refusal shall be communicated to the Executive Officer or the Trustee concerned. In this case, it is to be noticed that in the absence of any deeming provision for confirmation of auction on expiry of three months, it is not open for the petitioner to claim confirmation as a matter of right. However, in the impugned proceedings of the Commissioner, it is clearly observed that though the properties fetched in the public auction held on 29.5.2010 for the lands in question is more than the market value, but less when compared with the bid secured in the Tender-cum- Public auction of the properties belonging to the same Math. In that view of the matter, merely because it has fetched more than the market value by itself, is no ground for confirmation. In a given situation, if the Commissioner is of the opinion that the bid secured is not adequate in comparison to the price fetched in the tender-cum-public auction with regard to the properties of the very same Math, it is always open for the said authority to reject the same. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in B. Sambaiah v. Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Devasthanam[1], on a perusal of the said judgment, it is clear that it was a case where after the auction, another person, who has not participated in the auction, has offered higher price than the auction price. In the said circumstances, this Court found fault with the order passed by the Commissioner, as not tenable. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner would not render any assistance in support of her arguments in the present case. It is well settled that even highest bidder will not have any right for confirmation of auction and it is for the confirming authority either to confirm or not to confirm the sale in public interest, and if the confirming authority is of the opinion that the price fetched is not adequate, in comparison to the price of similarly placed properties, it is always open for the Commissioner to reject or refuse confirmation. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 23.11.2010 bnr Note: C.C. in two days. (B.O) bnr [1] 1988 (2) ALT 188