IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.28319 of 2010 Between: Peravalli Haranath, S/o.Buchaiah Chowdary, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District … Petitioner And The Commissioner, Endowment Department, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad, and others … Respondents Order: The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring notice dated 08-11-2010 published in the Telugu daily newspaper ‘Sakshi’, issued by the fourth respondent- Executive Officer, Grade III, Endowments Department, calling for tenders for grant of leasehold rights of fish in the tank admeasuring Ac.20.77 cents in R.S.No.485, situated at Kolavennu village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District as illegal and arbitrary. Earlier, the fourth respondent herein called for tenders for grant of leasehold rights of fish with regard to the aforesaid tank for a period of three years commencing from 28-10-2006 to 27-10-2009. The petitioner being the highest bidder for the aforesaid period was granted leasehold rights. After expiry of the said lease period, the petitioner made a representation to the third respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, on 09-06-2010 requesting to extend the period of lease on the ground that he suffered losses. It is stated that the petitioner has also deposited an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- towards advance rent, by increasing the rent by 1/3rd of the amount fetched in the earlier auction. It is stated that based on the said representation, the third respondent, by proceedings dated 30-07-2010, sought permission from the first respondent-Commissioner, Endowments Department, to continue the leasehold rights held by the petitioner upto 26-10-2010. It is the grievance of the petitioner that when such proposals are pending, the impugned notice has been issued calling for tenders for grant of leasehold rights through public auction. The main ground on which this writ petition is filed is that the petitioner has already deposited an amount of RS.3,50,000/- towards advance rent which is accepted by the respondents; therefore he is entitled for continuation of the leasehold rights. Another ground is that the Assistant Commissioner has already addressed the Commissioner, who is the competent authority, to extend the leasehold rights in his favour. When the matter came up for admission on 15-11- 2010, learned standing counsel appearing for the fifth respondent was directed to obtain instructions in the matter. When the matter is taken up today, the learned standing counsel has placed before this Court letter dated 02-11-2010 issued by the Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department wherein directions were issued for putting the leasehold rights of the tank in question to public auction. It is not in dispute that the lease granted to the petitioner is for a period of three years which expired by 27-10-2009. Although it is pleaded by the petitioner that he has deposited an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and therefore he is entitled for continuance of lease, it is to be seen that he has made such deposit in absence of any orders issued by the competent authority continuing the lease in his favour. Merely because the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, has addressed the Commissioner for extension of lease, that by itself does not confer any right on the petitioner to seek continuance of the lease. In view of the expiry of the lease period by 27-10-2009 and as there are no orders from the competent authority continuing the lease in favour of the petitioner, it cannot be said that issuance of the impugned notice for putting the leasehold rights of the tank in question for public auction is illegal. In the circumstances, no relief, as sought, can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. However, as it is stated that the petitioner has deposited certain amount anticipating continuance of the lease in his favour, it is clarified that he is entitled to refund of the amount so deposited, after deduction of arrears, if any payable by him. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) November 16, 2010 MRR