IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 10710 of 2009 Between: Gurram Sivaiah S/o.Koteswara Rao R/o.Bolayapalem (V) Karlapalem (M), Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur, Guntur District. 2 Manager Sri Prasanna Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Yazali Village, Karlapalem Mandal, Guntur District. 3 Sri Prasanna Anjaneya Swamy Temple, represented by its Managing Trustee, Yazali Village, Karlapalem Mandal, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in deciding to conduct auction of leasehold rights for the land of Ac.3.11 cents covered by D.No.318 of Bolayapalem Village, during subsistence of lease in favour of the petitioner as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, Rules framed there under and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to conduct auction of leasehold rights nor interfere in any manner with the petitioner possession and enjoyment over the said land and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: V.T.M.PRASAD,SC FOR ENDOWNMENTS The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 10710 of 2009 Oral order: By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to declare the action of the respondents in proposing to conduct auction of leasehold rights of the land in an extent of Ac.3.11 cents, covered by D. No. 318 of Bolayapalem village, during the subsistence of lease in his favour, as illegal and arbitrary. This Court, by order dated 29.05.2009, while admitting the writ petition, ordered notice to the respondents. Respondent No.2 having received the notice filed counter inter alia stating that the leasehold rights granted in favour of the petitioner for the lease year 2008-09 expired on 31.03.2009, and as of now, no lease is subsisting in his favour, and therefore, the auction proposed by them for leasing out the leasehold rights in respect of the land in question cannot be faulted, and prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner except stating that during the subsistence of the lease in his favour, the respondents are proposing to conduct leasehold rights of the land in question, has not placed any material before this Court, much less, any lease deed reflecting grant of any lease or extension of lease, particularly when it is the specific case of respondent No.2 that the lease granted in favour of the petitioner for the lease year 2008-09 expired on 31.03.2009, and thereafter, no lease was granted in his favour. In the absence of any material filed by the petitioner suggesting existence of lease in his favour after 31.03.2009 on which date the lease granted in favour of the petitioner for the year 2008-09 expired, no exception can be taken to the action of the respondents in proposing to conduct auction of the leasehold rights of the land in question. The writ petition is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. As the respondents are said to have postponed the conduct of auction, they are at liberty to conduct auction of the leasehold rights of the land in question, and if the petitioner so chooses, he may participate in the auction. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 07th July, 2009 KSR