THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.29268 of 2011 Date: 03.11.2011 Between: R. Manjula and others. … Petitioner and The Executive Officer, Sri Swayambhu Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy vari Devasthanam, Kanipakam Village and Post, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.29268 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri R.V. Chalapathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Devasthanam, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The petitioners are tenants of the shops belonging to the 1st respondent-Devasthanam. They were granted leasehold rights for a period of three years in the public auction conducted in the year 2008. The leases of petitioner Nos.1 to 4, 6 to 11, 13 and 16 to 28 are valid till 30.11.2011, the leases of petitioner Nos.5 and 12 are valid till 31.12.2011 and the leases of petitioner Nos.14 and 15 are valid till 16.1.2012. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the tender-cum-public auction notice in Rc.No.A1/1566/2011, dated 20.10.2011, published in local “Sakshi” Telugu Daily Newspaper dated 21.10.2011, as arbitrary and illegal, contending that their lease periods are liable to be extended on enhancement of rent and that the respondents are not justified in auctioning the leasehold rights without considering their representation for extension of lease in respect of the said shops. 4. An identical issue was the subject matter in W.P.No.12674 of 2010 and batch, dated 8.6.2010, and this Court, on a consideration of the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.866, dated 8.8.2003, namely A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Immovable Properties and Other Rights (other than Agricultural Lands), Lease and Licenses Rules, 2003 (for brevity “the Rules”), has held that the normal mode of grant of lease is only by way of public auction and that the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that they should be permitted to remain in occupation of the premises till the Commissioner decides their representation for extension of lease otherwise than by public auction on payment of higher rent. Therefore, the request of the petitioners to consider their representation does not merit acceptance as the Commissioner is required to examine any request made not by the petitioner but by the Executive authority, that too in accordance with the Rules. While holding so, this Court directed the petitioners therein be continued to remain in occupation of the premises till fresh public auction was held on condition that they pay the enhanced rent of 35%, and the arrears thereof. The petitioners were also entitled to participate in the public auction as and when held by the first respondent-Trust. It was also made clear that the petitioners be entitled to remain in occupation of the shops only till a lease agreement was entered into with the highest bidder in the public auction, and not thereafter. 5. In my view, the petitioners herein are also entitled for similar order. However, one additional question that has to be addressed in this writ petition is; Clause-12 of the impugned notification prohibits those intending bidders, who have approached the Courts against the Devasthanam, from submitting their bids. In my opinion, the said condition is against the public policy. Any person, having grievance, has a right to approach the Courts and the exercise of such right, cannot be said to be a disqualification. Therefore, the said clause, in my opinion, is against the public policy. 6. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to pass the following order: (i) The petitioners are permitted to continue to remain in occupation of their shops until the expiry of their respective lease periods or until lease agreements are entered into with the new lessees in pursuance of the impugned notification dated 20.10.2011, whichever is later; (ii) If the petitioners remain in occupation of their shops after expiry of their respective lease periods, they shall pay the enhanced rent of 35% and the arrears, if any, until the agreements are entered into with the new lessees; (iii) The petitioners shall vacate the respective shops and handover possession of the same to the 1st respondent- Devasthanam immediately after the agreements are executed in favour of the new lessees; and (iv) The petitioners are also entitled to participate in the auction being held pursuant to the impugned notification dated 20.10.2011, if they are not in arrears of rent. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners apprehends that the agreements with the new lessees are likely to be entered into even without obtaining the approval of the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Endowments as contemplated under Rule 12 of the Rules. 8. This Court cannot assume that the 1st respondent- Devasthanam would induct the new lessees without obtaining the approval of the Commissioner of Endowments as per the Rules. 9. Subject to the above directions and observation, the writ petition is dispose of. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 03.11.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.29268 of 2011 03.11.2011 (Msr)