IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 10953 of 2009 Between: P.Ramachandra S/o. Subbayalu, R/o. 13/289, Bhakerpet, Srikalahasti Town, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andrha Pradesh, Rep by its Commissioner for Endowments Department. Tilak Road, Boggulagunta, Hyderabad. 2 Sri Kalahasteswara Swamywari Devasthanam, Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District, Rep by its Executive Officer, .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus; to declare the action on the part of the respondents in issuing tender notification vide RC No.C2/1323/2009 Dt. 23.05.2009 where in and where by invited sealed tenders for the year 2009 to 2010 for issuance of license for collection of parking fee, without getting any orders for the proposal sent by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent vide Rc.No.C2/1458/2008 Dt 16.2.2009 amounts to erroneous, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to proceeds further in terms of tender Notification vide Rc.No.C2/1323/2009 Dt. 23-5-2009 . Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.C.KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the action of the respondent in issuing the tender notification dated 23.5.2009 inviting tenders for the year 2009-2010 for issuance of licence for collection of parking fee without getting any orders on the proposal sent by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent vide Rc.No.C2/1458/2008 dated 16.2.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments and the learned standing counsel for the respondent temple. The case of the petitioner is that he was the highest bidder in the auction held on 27.5.2008 for an amount of Rs.44,00,000/- for the period commencing from 1.6.2008 to 31.5.2009 for collecting parking fees and he was allotted the parking space at Bikshalagali Gopuram, within the temple premises on payment of the specified amounts. However, without any notice, on the instructions of the 1st respondent – Commissioner of Endowments, the 2nd respondent Devasthanam has taken over the space ear marked for parking place for construction of Devasthanam’s shopping complex in the month of September, 2008 itself, thereby permitting the petitioner to do the business only for three months, even though collected the amount for one year. Ventilating the said grievance, he approached the 2nd respondent. Since the parking area was taken over by the Devasthanam, the piligrims parked their vehicles on the road margins, wherever available and refused to pay the parking fees to him, thereby he sustained huge losses. While the matters stood thus, under the threat that his name will be black listed, he was made to pay the balance amount as per the tender notification even though he could not do the business and in that regard he made several representations to the 2nd respondent either to refund the amount for the period of 9 months during which he was not permitted to do the business or extend the lease period by another 9 months. He has also made a representation on 13.2.2009 seeking to renew the licence for further three years i.e. upto the end of 2012 by enhancing the license fee amount at the rate of 33% as per the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Rules. The same was recommended by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent on 16.2.2009. However, since the said representation was not considered, he approached this Court by way of filing W.P.No.7941 of 2009. In the said writ petition, interim orders were granted directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from that date. The grievance of the petitioner is that even before considering the said representation, the impugned notification is issued by the respondents and hence this writ petition. This Court on 5.6.2009, while issuing notice before admission, directed that the impugned tender process may go on, but, however, it shall not be finalized until further orders. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit along with a petition seeking vacation of the said interim order. The counter affidavit indicates that even though the petitioner requested to renew the licence period for further three years i.e., from 1.6.2009 to 31.5.2012 on the enhancement of licence amount at 33.5.%, the 1st respondent instructed the officials to conduct public auction in all the cases where the licence period already expired and hence public auction was conducted in the instant case also on 8.6.2009 and the highest bid was knocked down for Rs.92,63,000/- in favour of one Sri P.Ravindranath Reddy of Kadapa District for one year, which amount is much more than what is offered by the petitioner. Admittedly, even according to the petitioner also, his licence period already expired. Though it is stated that his representation seeking renewal of the same is still pending consideration before the 1st respondent, the learned Government Pleader submits that it was decided by the 1st respondent to conduct public auction in all the cases where the lease periods expired and accordingly auctions were conducted and in view of the interim orders of this Court, the auction in the instant case could not be finalized. In that view of the matter, I see no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the interim order granted by this Court on 5.6.2009 shall stand vacated. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.2.7.2009 msv