HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10246 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri P. Hemachandra, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri V.T.M. Prasad, Learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent. At their request, the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 12.04.2010, whereby the public at large were informed that an auction would be held on 30.04.2010 at 11.00 A.M. for grant of leasehold rights of shops belonging to Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy Vari Temple, Kanipakam, Chittoor District. The petitioner was, hitherto, granted a licence to run the shop in question, vide proceedings dated 09.05.2009, for a period of one year. The said period of one year is due to expire on 05.05.2010. It is the petitioner’s case that, due to lack of popularity, he did not get back his investment; his business had started improving slowly; and he had submitted a representation to the respondents seeking extension of lease for a further period of two weeks on an enhanced lease rent of 35%. Sri P. Hemachandra, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would place reliance on Circular No.39/83 dated 22.12.1983 whereby the licences, for running shops, were permitted to be extended on enhancing the lease rent by 25%. He would also refer to a press statement, alleged to have been made by the Honourable Minister for Endowments, to contend that the assurance of the Government, that the lease would be extended, should be given effect to. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 153(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987), the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Immovable Properties and other Rights (Other than Agricultural Lands) Leases and Licenses Rules, 2003 (for short ‘2003 Rules’), were made. Rule 3 of the 2003 Rules require all licenses to be made by public auction. Under the proviso to Rule 3, the Commissioner may, on a request made in writing by the Executive Authority, permit lease of any property or right, otherwise 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 would not suffer thereby. The petitioners’ request for extension of lease would not amount to a request made by the Executive Authority which is a pre-requisite for exercise of power by the Commissioner under Rule 3(1) of the 2003 Rules. Even otherwise, the interest of the institution would, undoubtedly, suffer if licenses were permitted to be extended, on payment of enhanced rent by 35%, since grant of leasehold rights by public auction would ensure that the institution maximizes its revenues as it is only the highest bidder who would be granted lease or licence of the shops in question. Rule 15 provides that any lease or licence granted, continued or allowed to be continued, otherwise than in accordance with the Rules shall be null and void. The petitioners’ request for extension of lease, otherwise than by way of public auction runs contrary to 2003 Rules, and the request, if acceded to, would be a nullity in view of Rule 15 of the 2003 Rules. It is well settled that where the field is governed by the statutory provisions, no executive instructions can be issued contrary thereto. (State of M.P. v. G.S. Dall & Flour Mills[1]). As such Circular No.39/83, dated 22.12.1983, which evidently falls foul of 2003 Rules, would be of no avail. Further, the said Circular was not even issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Act 30 of 1987 and was, evidently, issued under the 1966 Act as the circular is dated 22.12.1983 which is much prior to the date on which Act 30 of 1987 came into force. The assurance, alleged to have been given by the Honourable Minister for Endowments, cannot be enforced, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the 2003 Rules require that the lease or licence of shops belonging to temples should, ordinarily, be made only by way of public auction. Viewed from any angle, the Writ Petition as filed is devoid of merits. It is made clear that the petitioner would be entitled to continue to retain possession of the shop in question till expiry of the earlier lease period on 05.05.2010. Leaving it open to the petitioner, if he so chooses, to participate in the auction, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date: 28.02.2010 usd [1] 1992 Suppl(1) SCC 150