THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.2986 OF 2008 BETWEEN: 1. Nayanappagari Ramakrishnaiah Subbaiah, died per L.Rs. 2. N. Siva Prasad, S/o. Nayanappagari Ramakrishnaiah Subbaiah, @ N.R. Subbanna, Shop No.9/156, Sannidhi Street, Tirumala, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Chittoor District. …. PETITIONERS And 1. The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, TTD Administrative Buildings, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, and others. …. RESPONDENTS Counsel for petitioners: Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri C. Suman Counsel for respondents: Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, S.C. for TTD The Court made the following order: ORDER: Originally, the writ petition was filed by Nayanappagari Ramakrishnaiah Subbaiah. On his death, his son N. Siva Prasad has come on record as the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the third respondent herein, namely, the Estate Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (TTD), Endt.Roc.No.Rev2/205/AEO(Rev)/Tml/2007, dated 11.12.2007, as illegal and consequently to direct the respondent to allot a shop to the petitioner on the Tirumala Hills. By the said order dated 11.12.2007, the third respondent rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of licence to run a shop, on the ground that the petitioner had not produced recorded evidence of his eligibility for the allotment. The case of the petitioner, as pleaded in the writ petition, is that originally the authorities of the TTD allotted shop bearing No.9/156 situated at Sannidhi street in favour of one, Akula Krishnaiah and the said shop was leased to the petitioner on rent in the year 1970. The petitioner has been running business in the said shop by obtaining registration from the Commercial Tax Department. Sannidhi street was widened during the year 1982 and during the year 1988 fresh proceedings were issued in the name of the original allottee Akula Krishnaiah in respect of the said shop, and on the offer made by the original allottee and his son Akula Subrahmanyam, the petitioner purchased the shop and came into possession of the original proceedings of allotment of the shop dated 04.12.1998. Thereafter, in the year 2004, the said shop was taken possession by the TTD authorities in order to provide public amenities to pilgrims and shifted the petitioner temporarily to shop No.18 situated in front of RBGH, Tirumala. Proceedings dated 16.06.2004 were accordingly issued in the name of Akula Krishnaiah. Contending that he is the enjoyer as a lessee/purchaser of the shop and is entitled for allotment of a new shop on permanent basis, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent, namely, Executive Officer, inter alia, stating that the original allotment was made in favour of Akula Krishnaiah with a condition that the shop should not be sub-let to any third party. Subletting of premises is prohibited. Rents were being paid for shop No.9/156 in the name of the original allottee Akula Krishnanaih and as such the premises has not been sub-let to the petitioner. The shops were let out to the allottees on humanitarian grounds for the purpose of livelihood and the allottees are not entitled either to sell the property or to sublease the same. The sale of shop in favour of the petitioner is not within the knowledge of the respondents, and as the sale or sublease is not permissible, the petitioner is not entitled for allotment of any shop. The petitioner in his reply affidavit while reiterating that the shop was leased/purchased has denied the stand taken by the respondents that subletting of premises is prohibited. Many shops have been allotted to sub- lessees by the original allottees on humanitarian grounds in the past. The petitioner was in fact called upon by a notice dated 02-08-2006 to submit a list of documents to change the licence in his name and he has been conducting business to the knowledge of the respondents. Heard Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri C.Suman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the petitioner is the successor-in-interest of the original allottee Akula Krishnaiah both as sub-lessee and as purchaser and as such he is entitled for allotment of shop on par with similarly situated persons. He would contend that the practice of allotment of shops to the sub-lessees or the purchasers from the original allottees has been in vogue for decades. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to various proceedings issued since 1979 showing allotment of shops to the sub-lessees. Based on the same, the Senior Counsel would contend that the petitioner is also entitled for allotment on par with similarly situated persons and the petitioner could not be denied allotment by discriminating him. He would also submit that in support of the claim as a lessee/purchaser, the petitioner submitted relevant material and the 3rd Respondent has not looked into the said material. At any rate the counsel would submit that the petitioner is prepared to file material again in support of his claim. He would therefore contend that the order passed by the third respondent is not sustainable. The learned standing counsel however would reiterate the stand taken in the counter and submit that the petitioner is not entitled for allotment. He would submit that the petitioner did not produce relevant material in support of his claim either as a sub-lessee or as a purchaser. He would also further submit that an objection was received from one Aakula Satish Kumar claiming himself to be the grand son of the original lessee Aakula Krishnaiah objecting for the allotment in favour of the petitioner. He would therefore contend that rejection of the application of the petitioner for allotment of shop cannot be found fault with. Whether the petitioner is a sub lessee/purchaser from the original allottee Akula Krishnaiah and whether the petitioner is also entitled for allotment, are the questions, which are within the domain of the respondents. It is the specific case of the petitioner that sub-lease is permissible and the practice to allot shops to sub-lessees has been in vogue. A perusal of various proceedings filed before this Court as material papers, would prima facie show that there has been a practice of allotting shops to the sub-lessees also. Further, the TTD Authorities appear to have deliberated on the issue whether to allot the shops to the purchasers and after deliberations adopted a Resolution No.119, dated 29-05-2007 for allotment of the shops to the purchasers also subject to certain conditions contained in the said resolution. It is also the specific case of the petitioner that he has submitted required material to support his claim as sub-lessee and that he is eligible for allotment. On a perusal of the material produced in the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner has been seeking allotment based on some material. The respondents are therefore expected to consider the same before concluding whether the petitioner is entitled for allotment or not. However, a perusal of the impugned order dated 11.12.2007 would show that the third respondent herein has not considered the case of the petitioner in the light of the request made by him. The third respondent rejected the request of the petitioner by passing a cryptic order as if the petitioner did not produce any material. As noted above, the petitioner has been making request for the allotment of the shop for quite sometime based on some material. Even otherwise the 3rd Respondent could have called upon the petitioner to submit material in support of the claim of the petitioner. Having regard to the practice to allot the shops to the sub-lessees and to the Resolution No.119, dated 20-05-2007, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not entitled for allotment, provided, however, he satisfies the conditions contained in the said resolution. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the respondent in Endt.Roc.No.Rev2/205/AEO(Rev)/Tml/2007, dated 11-12- 2007 and remit the matter with a direction to reconsider the matter in the light of the said resolution and the practice to allot shops to the sub- lessees/purchasers. The petitioner is also permitted to file further material, if any, in support of his claim within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the said material, the 3rd Respondent is directed to consider in the light of the observations as above and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks thereafter. The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 10th November, 2010 skmr/js.