IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 13481 of 2008 Between: Dhanakonda Dasu, S/o. Ayodhyaramaiah, H.No. 3-1-11, Raja Veedhi, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commissioner, Endowments, Tilak Road, Boggulkunta, Hyderabad. 2 Sri Sitaramachandraswami Vari Devasthanam, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District, Rep. by its Executive Office .....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 an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in conducting open auction for the lease of shop while the lease of petitioner is subsisting as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the A P Charitable and Religious Endowments Act, 1987 and rules made thereunder. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.13481 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in conducting open auction for lease of shop situated in Sri Sitaramachandraswamy vari Devasthanam, Bhadrachalam, is arbitrary and illegal. Though it is not disputed that the petitioner was granted lease for running the said shop on 03.07.2001, admittedly, the three years period of lease expired long back. The only plea of the petitioner is that since he was allowed to continue in possession, the respondents are not justified in proposing to conduct fresh auction for grant of leasehold rights without considering his request for extension of the lease. It is also pleaded that as a matter of fact, the Executive Officer of the second respondent- Devasthanam having considered his request, recommended for extension of lease in his favour and sought for approval of the first respondent vide proceedings, dated 10.08.2007. However, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.866, dated 08.08.2003, under which, the A.P.Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Immovable Properties and Other Rights (other than Agricultural Lands) Leases and Licenses Rules, 2003 were issued, the grant of lease shall be only by way of public auction and there cannot be any extension of lease in favour of the existing lessee. On a reading of Rule 3 of the above said Rules which mandates that the lease or licenses shall be made by way of public auction, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. Since admittedly the period of lease granted in favour of the petitioner expired long back, it is not open to the petitioner to question the fresh auction proposed to be conducted by the second respondent. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly, dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner from participating in the auction, if he so chooses, in which event, his bid shall also be considered on par with other participants. No costs. _______________ 26.06.2008 Note: Issue CC in two days. (b/o) VGB