IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.8196 OF 2003 Dt.27.1.2010 Between: Ragipati Srinivasulu … Petitioner And The Commissioner of Endowments Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M. Santosh Kumar, for Sri C. Damodar Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: A.G.P. for Endowments Counsel for Respondent No.3: None appeared THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.8196 OF 2003 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not taking steps against respondent No.3 - Choultry for construction of the shops by fixing shutters on the western side facing R&B Road, Pamuru, and the action of respondent No.3 in trying to sell/lease out the shops to third parties for ninety-nine years without conducting public auction/tenders in active collusion with respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri M. Santosh Kumar, representing Sri C. Damodar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is stated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, who is a resident of Pamuru Village, that respondent No.3 choultry was founded about sixty years back, that one China Somaiah gifted an extent of 200 Sq. yards of land for the purpose of construction of the said choultry, that after construction of the choultry, it was taken over by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and appointed one Anumala Setty Sreeramulu as trustee of the choultry and that the said trustee has in turn appointed one Rachuri Narasimha Rao as Manager. At the instance of the Manager, the Endowments Department accorded permission for construction of a new building in place of the old building by proceedings dt.29.6.2002 and that instead of putting up windows on the western side of the existing building, respondent No.3 is said to have constructed shops by fixing shutters on the western side facing R & B Road by converting the rest rooms. The petitioner, who is claiming to run a petty business in a bunk adjacent to respondent No.3 choultry, alleged that respondent No.3 has managed with certain officials including police officers to remove the bunks and when they approached respondent No.3 to allot the shops, instead of allotting the shops to them, the Manager of respondent No.3 is seeking to lease out the newly constructed shops to third parties by executing agreements for ninety- nine years without holding auction. No counter affidavits have been filed by any of the respondents. The silence on the part of the respondents and their conduct in not contesting the Writ Petition raise a serious doubt in the mind of this Court regarding their discharge of the statutory duties in proper disposal of the endowment property. The provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’) govern disposal of properties by way of alienations and leases etc. Under Section 82(3) of the Act, the lease or licence in respect of any property belonging to a charitable or religious institution or endowment shall be as prescribed by the Rules. In exercise of this power, the Government framed Rules called ‘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, ‘the Rules’). Rule 3(1) of the said Rules provides that all leases and licences shall be made by way of public auction. The proviso to the said Rule prescribes exceptional situation where for reasons to be recorded in writing, the lease can be granted otherwise than by way of public auction. Under Rule 4(2) of the Rules, no lease of immovable property shall be granted for a period exceeding three years. Evidently, keeping these statutory provisions in mind, this Court by order dt.1.5.2003 granted interim direction that no property of respondent No.3 should be sold or given on lease without holding public auction and for a period exceeding three years. Having regard to the peremptory Statutory provisions discussed above, it is not open to the respondents to either alienate the property of respondent No.3 or give away the same under lease without following the Rules referred to above. The respondents are, therefore, restrained from alienating or leasing the properties without following the procedure prescribed under the above mentioned Rules. If the respondents decide to lease the property by holding public auction, the petitioner is entitled to participate in the same. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P. No.8196 of 2003, filed by the petitioner, is disposed of. ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27.1.2010 bnr