IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 558 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/02/2008 in WP NO : 681 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Siripurapu Madana Mohan Reddy S/o.Narasimha Reddy R/o.Annavaram, East Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Annavaram, East Godavari District. 2 The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Opp: Saraswatha Auditorium, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad. 3 Peketi Satyanarayana S/o.Appala Swamy R/o Behind Ice-Factory, Annavaram East Godavari District. 4 Vedurupaka V.S.N. Murthy S/o.Chinna Rao R/o D.No.2-129, Ravisetti Paka, Annavaram East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.P.V.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: V.T.M.PRASAD,SC FOR ENDOWNMENTS The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order dated 25-2-2008 passed in W.P.No. 681 of 2008, this appeal has been filed by the appellant-original petitioner. The appellant-petitioner was given a licence to run Canteen owned by respondent No.1 for a period commencing from 1-2-2007 to 31-1- 2008. As the said lease for one year was over, respondent No.1- Devasthanam had held auction for the said licence and at the auction, the present petitioner had given a bid for Rs. 5 lakhs per month, whereas respondent No.3 had offered a bid of Rs.7,51,000/- per month and, therefore, the right to run the Canteen was given to respondent No.3. Being aggrieved by the aforestated order, the petition was filed. It was contended on behalf of the appellant-petitioner that tender condition No. 12 had been violated and, therefore, possession of the Canteen should not be handed over to respondent No.3. According to tender condition No.12, the successful tenderer had to deposit four months’ licence fee within three days from the date on which the tender is finalized. It appears that there was some delay in making payment by respondent No.3. But at present, the entire amount has been paid, as submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.1-Devasthanam. What is important is that the period for which licence was granted to the appellant-petitioner is over and he is not a successful bidder for the present year. In the circumstances, the appellant-petitioner had no right to remain in occupation of the Canteen to run the same and in fact possession of the Canteen has already been handed over to respondent No.3. In our opinion, even if there is some irregularity committed by respondent No.1 or if respondent No.1 had become little lenient in favour of respondent No.3, that would not give any ground to the appellant- petitioner to remain in occupation of the canteen in question. Moreover, looking to the fact that respondent No.3 has been now given possession of the place where the canteen is run and in view of the substantial increase in the lease rent, in our opinion, this is not an appeal where this Court should interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. We do not find any substance in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 17th June, 2008. ________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR To 1. 2.2 CD copies