HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.3343 of 2009 ORDER: The action of the respondents in not extending the lease agreement entered into with the petitioner herein earlier, and in proceeding to conduct an auction for granting license rights in respect of Shop No.10 vide proceedings dated 11.02.2009, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner participated in the auctions held earlier and was granted lease hold rights over shop No.10 for a period of three years from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2009. The annual lease rent was fixed at Rs.1,500/- and the petitioner paid the amount for the entire lease period in advance. The petitioner claims to have obtained a drug license which, according to him, is valid upto 20.10.2010. As the lease was due to expire on 31.03.2009, the petitioner submitted a representation on 28.01.2009 to the 2nd respondent seeking extension of lease on payment of enhanced lease rent of 35% more than the monthly rent being paid by him hitherto. The respondent-Devastanam, however, proceeded to conduct the auction on 20.02.2009. The petitioner, who participated in the auction, offered to pay Rs.4,350/- per month as rent for shop No.10 as against the highest bid received of lease rent of Rs.5,050/- per month. Sri J. Bhaskara Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the action of the respondents in holding auctions was discriminatory in as much as several other shops were granted extension of lease enhancing the rent by amounts ranging between (+)25% to (+)33% higher than the previous monthly rent; and the petitioner was entitled for being extended a similar benefit. Learned Counsel would submit that, since the petitioner had a drug license valid upto 31.12.2011, the respondents were not justified in refusing to grant extension of lease. Granting of lease and license for immovable properties of Hindu Religious Endowments and Charitable Institutions is governed by the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Immovable Properties And Other Rights (Other Than Agricultural) Lease and License Rules, 2003 (hereinafter called the Rules). Rule 3(1) stipulates that the Commissioner, on a request made in writing by the Executive Authority, may permit the lease of any property or right otherwise than by way of a 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. Extension of lease, without taking the public auction route, is more in the nature of an exception than a rule. Rule 3(2) prescribes the place at which the public auction is to be held. Rule 4(2)(a) provides that no lease of immovable property shall be granted for a period exceeding three years. Rule 6 prescribes the details to be provided for in the auction notice. Rule 8(1) stipulates that the auction shall be conducted by the Executive Officers of the institution or endowment concerned. Rule 10 provides that the Lease or licence shall, ordinarily, be given to the highest bidder and, where it is proposed to accept a bid higher than the highest bid, the reason for not accepting the highest or other bids higher than the accepted bid shall be recorded in writing by the Executive Authority. Rule 12(1) provides that all leases or licenses shall, immediate after the auction is conducted, be reported to the competent authority who may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, confirm or reject the lease or licence. Rule 12(3) provides that no lease or licence shall be valid until it is approved by the competent authority. The Rules, except in case where it is so directed by the Commissioner, do not provide for extension of leases on payment of enhanced rent. The normal course for grant of lease or licence, for immovable properties belonging to Religious Institutions and Endowments, is by way of public auction. In the light of the aforesaid statutory rules, the petitioner’s plea of discrimination does not merit acceptance. Even if it were to be presumed that the respondents had extended the lease for other shops, it would only mean that they have acted contrary to the rules and have committed an illegality. No mandamus can be sought from this Court to perpetuate an illegality. (Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh[1]). If the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in allotting shop to others, contrary to the rules, the remedy available to him is to question such action and not to claim a similar illegal benefit. The plea of discrimination must, therefore, fail. With regards the petitioner’s contention that his drug licence is valid till 31.12.2012, it must be borne in mind that he was granted lease of a shop belonging to respondent-Devastanam. The statutory obligations of the Devastanam, to auction lease hold rights over its immovable properties, cannot be curtailed or set at naught on the specious plea that the petitioner’s drug licence requires him to run a medical shop in the very same premises. The Devastanam is justified in conducting auctions in accordance with the statutory rules and its obligation to do so cannot be subjected to the period of the drug licence which the petitioner has obtained for the purpose of running the shop. Sri J. Bhaskara Rso, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would further submit that the petitioner was ready and willing to pay monthly lease rentals higher than the lease rent offered by the highest bidder. The petitioner has continued to remain in occupation of the premises paying the earlier rent fixed at Rs.1,500/- per month. In case the petitioner deposits the differential rent, (difference between Rs.5050/- and Rs.1500/- for each month), from the 1st April, 2009 till date, within a period of two weeks from today the respondent- Devastanam shall call both the petitioner and the highest bidder in the auction for negotiations and allot the shop to the one who is willing to offer the higher monthly lease rent. In case the petitioner does not deposit the arrears of differential lease rent from 01.04.2009 till date within the aforesaid stipulated period of two weeks from today, it is open to the respondent Devastanam to proceed and lease out the property in question to the highest bidder in the auction. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. Date: 30 .03.2010 ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR [1] AIR 1995 SC 705