HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10138 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri B.V.S.S.B.K. Ranjit, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri V.T.M. Prasad, Learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent. At their request, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioners, three in number, claim to be the lessees for varying extents of vacant sites of R.V.B.S. Choultry, Kathipudi Village, Shankavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, in an auction held by the respondents. It is their case that the lease of these plots, wherein they have put up shops to carry on their business, expired on 30.04.2010, and they had requested the authorities to consider extension of lease for a further period of three years enhancing the lease rent by 33 1/3%. Aggrieved the failure of the respondents in not considering their request, they have invoked this Court’s jurisdiction. They are also aggrieved by auction notification issued by the fourth respondent on 19.04.2010 informing the general public that an open auction would be conducted on 30.04.2010 at 11.00 A.M. for grant of leasehold rights of vacant sites of R.V.B.S. Choultry, Kathipudi Village, Shankavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, for a period of three years. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 153(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987), the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Immovable Properties and other Rights (Other than Agricultural Lands) Leases and Licenses Rules, 2003 (for short ‘2003 Rules’), were made. Rule 3, of the 2003 Rules, requires all leases to be made by public auction. Under the proviso to Rule 3 the Commissioner may, on a request made in writing by the Executive Authority, permit lease of any property, or right, otherwise than by way of public auction, if he is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the interest of the institution or endowment would not suffer thereby. The petitioners’ request for extension of lease would not amount to a request made by the Executive Authority which is a pre-requisite for exercise of powers by the Commissioner under Rule 3(1). Even otherwise the interest of the institution would, undoubtedly, suffer if licenses were permitted to be extended since grant of leasehold rights by public auction would ensure that the institution maximizes its revenues as the highest bidder would be granted lease or licence of the shops in question. Rule 15 provides that any lease or licence granted, continued or allowed to be continued otherwise than in accordance with the rules, shall be null and void. The petitioners’ request for extension of lease, otherwise than by way of public auction, runs contrary to the 2003 Rules and the request, if acceded to, would be a nullity in view of Rule 15 of the 2003 Rules. The petitioners’ representation seeking extension of lease by enhancing rent at 331/3% is not permissible under the 2003 Rules and as such no purpose would be served in directing the respondents to consider their representation. In view of the statutory rules governing the field, the action of the respondents, in putting to auction the leasehold rights of the vacant sites, cannot be faulted. Leaving it open to the petitioners, if they so choose, to participate in the auction to be held on 30.04.2010, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:29.04.2010 usd