IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY 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 : 631 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26/06/2008 in WP NO : 13481 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Dhanakonda Dasu, S/o. Ayodhyaramaiah, H.No. 3-1-11, Raja Veedhi, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Commissioner, Endowments, Tilak Road, Boggulkunta, Hyderabad. 2 Sri Sitaramachandraswami Vari Devasthanam, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District, Rep. by its Executive Officer .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) In a very peculiar circumstances, this appeal has been filed. On 27th June, 2008 when the appeal was notified for hearing, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant had submitted that he could not procure a copy of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, on his oral submission ad-interim relief was granted whereby the respondents were directed not to finalize the auction in favour of any person. Today, when the matter has been called up, the learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant-original petitioner ought to have been given on lease the shop in question which had been leased in his favour up to 2004. He has submitted that the respondent- Devasthanam ought not to have auctioned the shop in question by holding a public auction. We have heard the learned Advocates and have perused the order passed in W.P.No. 13481 of 2008. The circumstances in which the appellant-petitioner has approached this Court, in a nutshell, are as under: The shop in question had been leased in favour of the appellant for a period of three years, and the said period came to an end in 2004. Normally as per Rule 3 of the A.P. 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’), all leases or licenses are to be made by way of public auction. The said Rule reads as under: “3.(1) All leases or licenses shall be made by way of public auction: Provided that the Commissioner may, on a request made in writing by the Executive Authority permit the lease of any property or right other wise than by way of public auction, if he is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing that the interest of the institution or endowment will not suffer thereby. He may grant permission to such executive authority to grant a lease otherwise than by way of public auction.” Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that a suggestion was made by the 2nd respondent-Temple to the Commissioner, namely respondent No.1, that the lease in favour of the appellant should continue. Upon looking to the language in Rule 3(1) of the Rules, it is seen that the Commissioner, having been vested with the discretion to renew a lease, otherwise than by way of a public auction, by his order dated 28th June, 2008 has taken a decision that the shop in question be leased by holding a public auction. In our opinion, the said decision is just and proper, as by holding a public auction, the respondent- Devasthanam may procure higher lease rent. In our opinion, no right muchless a legal right, of the appellant has been adversely affected. Needless to say that it is open to him to participate in the auction when leasehold right in respect of shop in question are put to auction. For the aforestated reasons, we do not find any illegality in the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. _______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 1st July, 2008. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR