HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.14680 of 2008 Date: April 11, 2011 Between: Yallamelli Ramarao … Petitioner And 1. The govt. of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj, Hyderabad & 7 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.14680 of 2008 O R D E R: Though the matter is coming up for hearing on interlocutory applications, it is amenable to final disposal. Hence this final order, with the consent of the learned counsel. 2. The writ petition was filed challenging the action of the respondent authorities in not confirming the auction of the usufruct of the Coconut trees situated in the Housing Board Colony of Komaragiripatnam village, Allavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, for a period of three years from 01.4.2008 to 31.3.2011, in favour of the petitioner though he was the highest bidder. 3. The first auction for the subject grant was held on 11.4.2008 and the petitioner was the highest bidder at Rs.15,050/-. However, the same was not accepted and the auction was postponed to 25.4.2008 and subsequently, to 02.5.2008, 13.5.2008 and 16.5.2008. The petitioner claims to have been present on all the occasions, but the auction was not finalized on three occasions, as the bid amounts of the participants were not acceptable to the authorities. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 16.5.2008, the last auction date, when he went to the venue, he was told by the authorities that the auction would be postponed again. However, he came to know thereafter that the auction was held on the said date and the 8th respondent was declared as the highest bidder at Rs.15,100/-. As the said bid was only Rs.50/- more than his bid, the petitioner addressed a legal notice to the respondent authorities to confirm the auction in his favour. Aggrieved by the inaction on his request, he filed the present writ petition. 5. This Court, by order dated 09.7.2008, directed interim stay of confirmation of the auction conducted on 16.5.2008, if not already confirmed. 6. The Panchayat Secretary of Komarigiripatnam Gram Panchayat, Allavaram Mandal, stated in his counter that the upset price fixed in the auction was Rs.22,000/- and as the said price was not fetched in spite of the auction being postponed time and again, it was finally knocked down in favour of the 8th respondent, who became the highest bidder in the auction held on 16.5.2008. He stated further that the auction was confirmed following the due procedure after receiving 1/3rd of the amount on 02.6.2008 itself. 7. The afore stated facts demonstrate that the period of the grant has already concluded. Further, in spite of the petitioner having been granted stay orders by this Court, no benefit enured to him, as the confirmation of the auction in favour of the 8th respondent had already taken place. The sequence of events narrated supra indicate that in spite of the upset price of Rs.22,000/- not being fetched, the auction was finally knocked down in favour of the 8th respondent for a sum, just Rs.50/- over and above the bid of the petitioner in the very first auction. 8. The facts stated supra indicate that there may be merit in the petitioner’s contention that he was deliberately excluded. Be that as it may, as the period of the auctioned grant is already over, the issue is rendered purely academic and need not trouble this Court any further. However, it is necessary for this Court to point out that the respondents must invariably follow the due procedure while granting State largesse and their actions in this regard must adhere to the norms of fair play in action and be above board and transparent in all respects. The facts of the case on hand reflect that this requirement was not fulfilled. However, as the matter has become stale, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate the issue. It is however mandatory for the respondent authorities to follow the due procedure in true and proper letter and spirit in future auctions while granting the usufruct of the Coconut trees. 9. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: April 11, 2011. BSB