IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18103 of 2000 Between: E.Nagaraja, S/o E.Lakshmanna, R/o B.Kothakota Village and Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments, Multi Zone-II, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3 The Executive Officer, Group of temples, Makanapalli, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for Respondent No.3: SRI K.V.N.BHUPAL The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in notifying Ac.0.28 cents in Sy.No.737 of B.Kothakota Village and Mandal, Chittoor District, for sale in tender-cum-public auction scheduled to be held on 29.09.2000, as illegal. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he happened to be the highest bidder in respect of the above mentioned land in the auction proceedings held in pursuance of notiﬁcation, dated 14.01.2000, the same land was again included in the subsequent notiﬁcation published in newspaper, dated 17.09.200, for being put into auction. 3. No counter aﬃdavits have been ﬁled on behalf of the respondents. However, at the hearing, Sri K.V.N.Bhupal, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.3, on instructions, submitted that though the petitioner’s oﬀer was the highest oﬀer, the same was not accepted, in view of the mistake in treating the nature of the land as dry. He also stated that, however, the said land is not re-notiﬁed for put into auction even in the notiﬁcation, dated 14.09.2000, published on 17.09.2000. 4. In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3, the premise on which the writ petition is ﬁled, namely, that the land in respect of which the petitioner oﬀered the highest bid amount was proposed to be auctioned ceases to exist. However, if the petitioner seeks a further relief on the basis of the oﬀer made by him, the same gives rise to a separate cause of action to question rejection order, dated 06.04.2000, said to have been passed by respondent No.1 5. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. No costs. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 5th September, 2008 v v