THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 7258 of 2009 Oral order: Respondent No.2-Temple issued tender notification dated 26.02.2009 for grant of licence to collect parking fee at the Temple premises for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010. The petitioner, who participated in the auction conducted on 20.03.2009, was declared as the highest at Rs.12,15,000/-. The petitioner paid the entire licence amount on 24.03.2009. After conducting the auction, it appears that respondent No.2 had sent the auction proceedings file to respondent No.1-Commissioner of Endowments for ratification. However, respondent No.1 vide proceedings dated 31.03.2009 refused to ratify the auction, cancelled the auction and directed conduct auction again as per rules and submit report. In pursuance thereof, respondent No.2 issued fresh tender notification dated 04.04.2009 for conducting auction for grant of licence to collect parking fee, on 13.04.2009. It is this tender notification, which the petitioner has called in question, in this writ petition. On 07.04.2009, this Court while admitting the writ petition, directed that the auction, as scheduled may go on, but the same shall not be finalized until further orders. Now respondent No.2 filed petition to vacate said interim order accompanied by counter-affidavit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is the highest bidder in the auction conducted on 20.03.2009 for grant of right to collect parking fee, and he having paid the entire licence amount, respondent No.1 was not justified in cancelling the auction and directing conduct of auction again, and more so without recording any reasons for cancellation. In support of this argument, that respondent No.1 was bound to record reasons for cancellation, so as to enable the highest bidder work out his remedies, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Indian Hair Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy[1]. Respondent No.1 did not file counter. However, respondent No.2-Temple filed counter along with the vacate stay petition. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 reiterating the counter averments submitted that respondent No.1 has the right to confirm or reject the auction. He submitted that respondent No.2 has received letters from individuals who paid the earnest money as also from individuals who did not pay the earnest money stating that they were prevented by some persons from participating in the auction and agreed to pay more money. Respondent No.1 refused to ratify the auction and ordered respondent No.2 to conduct auction action. In the auction conducted again on 13.04.2009, respondent No.2 has received the highest offer of Rs. 32,04,000/-, while the petitioner, who was the highest bidder in the earlier auction for Rs.12,15,000/-, also participated in the fresh auction, and raised his offer to Rs.31,52,000/-. The petitioner having participated in the fresh auction, is estopped from assailing the cancellation order, and prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for respondent No.1 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Temple. The respondents do not dispute the fact that the petitioner having quoted Rs.12,15,000/- is the highest bidder in the auction conducted on 20.03.2009, for grant of right to collect parking fee at respondent No.2-Temple. Though the petitioner is the highest bidder in the first auction, the fact remains, when the auction proceedings were sent for ratification, respondent No.1 issued proceedings dated 31.03.2009, refusing to ratify the auction and directed respondent No.2 to conduct auction again. Though respondent No.1, has the power to either confirm or reject the auction, the fact remains, if he refuses to confirm the auction, he is under an obligation to record reasons. Admittedly, respondent No.1 has not recorded any reason for refusing to confirm and cancel the auction and order fresh auction. The reason assigned by respondent No. 1 in his proceedings dated 31.03.2009 for cancelling the auction is “that the temple has conducted the public auction for licence rights of collection of parking fee from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 and the highest bidder Sri. P. Rama Chandra, Kalahasthi, has expressed his inability as the Gram Panchayat officials are creating hurdles to collection of the parking fee from the vehicles which come to the temple, and thus requested to return his deposit”. This reason assigned by respondent No.1 for cancelling the auction and ordering fresh auction, has no relation or nexus to the impugned auction proceedings. Except this reason, which has no relevance to the earlier auction proceedings, respondent No.1 has not assigned any relevant reason, which justifies his action to cancel the earlier auction and order fresh auction. This Court in Indian Hair Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy, had held that the highest bidder would be entitled to know reasons for rejection so as to enable him to exercise his right of judicial remedies and claim protection of law. Since the order dated 31.03.2009, passed by respondent No.1 does not disclose any reason, much less relevant reason for cancellation, the same having regard to the above judgment cannot be sustained. Though the order dated 31.03.2009 passed by respondent No.1 does not stand to legal scrutiny, and is liable to be set aside, but the fact remains, respondent No.2 in pursuance of the orders of respondent No. 1 conducted fresh auction on 13.04.2009. In the said auction, the petitioner along with some others participated, and a perusal of the material papers relating to the auction proceedings placed by respondent No.2 before the Court, would disclose that one Sri. Dhanunjay, having raised his offer to Rs.32,04,000/- stood as the highest bidder, while the petitioner who was the highest bidder in the earlier auction at Rs.12,15,000/-, and who also participated in the second auction, had raised his offer to Rs.31,52,000/-. The fact that the second auction fetched more amounts than what were received in the first auction, much less from the petitioner, clearly indicates that the parking lot in question, has the potentiality to fetch more money. Even though the order dated 31.03.2009 of respondent No.1 is liable to be set aside, but because of lapses on the part of respondent No.1 in not recording reasons for cancellation, the interests of respondent No.2- Temple should not be jeopardized and it should not be put to financial loss, and therefore, I do not wish to quash the order dated 31.03.2009 passed by respondent No.1 cancelling the auction and ordering fresh auction. Since this Court has expressed its reluctance to set aside the order, in the normal course, the writ petition has to be dismissed. But at this stage, the petitioner, who participated in the second auction also, has agreed to raise his offer to more than what the highest bidder Sri. Dhanunjay offered. Since the fresh auction conducted in pursuance of the order of this Court has not been finalized because of orders of interim orders of this Court, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Temple considering the offer made by the petitioner, agreed that respondent No. 2 would negotiate with the highest bidder as well as the petitioner to increase the offer by fixing the minimum upset price at Rs.32,04,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner agreed for this course of action. In view of the agreed stand taken by the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Temple, as noted above, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: Respondent No.2-Temple shall fix the minimum upset price at Rs.32,04,000/- and negotiate with the petitioner as well as the highest bidder for increasing their offer, and whoever gives the highest offer, shall be granted the licence to collect parking fee by respondent No.2. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 10th June, 2009 KSR [1] 2009 (3) ALD 129