HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18282 of 2007 Date : 29.11.2011 Between : S. Arun Kumar. …..Petitioner And Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, Tirupati, rep. by its Executive Officer & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18282 of 2007 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, questioning the letter, dated 27.07.2007, issued in Roc.No.PO2/339/AEO(P)/Tml/1999, and the further notification, in Roc.No.PR4/13299/Advt.181/2007, dated 10th August 2007, issued by the respondents and published in Indian Express and Andhra Jyothi newspapers on 11.08.2007. There is a site admeasuring 8750 square feet, equivalent to 813 square metres at Tirumala Hills in Chittoor District. The said site was leased out to the 2nd respondent-Indian Oil Corporation by Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam (TTD), for a period of five years, which is expired by 14.10.2006. Though there is a request from the 2nd respondent for extension of lease, the same was not extended and it is stated in the counter filed by the 1st respondent that they have resolved to invite tenders for grant of fresh lease. When the application of the 2nd respondent-Indian Oil Corporation for extension of lease was pending, the 1st respondent-TTD has addressed a letter to the Manager of Sree Balaji Filling Station, Tirumala, intimating that when the request for extension of lease of said filling station near ANC area has been placed before the Board of Trustees on 28.06.2007, the same was rejected and a decision was taken to call for fresh tenders. In the said letter, the Manager of the filling station was informed that after finalization of tenders, he has to vacate the premises for the convenience of running a petrol bunk by the tenderer. Further, the 1st respondent-TTD has also issued fresh notification inviting bids for grant of licence to sell oils in the filling station at Tirumala, as stated in the impugned notification. The petitioner herein claims to be the dealer appointed by the 2nd respondent-Indian Oil Corporation to run the retail outlet. In this writ petition, mainly he has questioned the impugned notification alleging that by impugned notification, tenders are invited for grant of licence to sell the oils in the filling station at Tirumala and that the Executive Officer is not authorized to issue such licence to sell petroleum products. It is also the case of petitioner that when the 2nd respondent, who is the original lessee, sent a request for extension of lease and when such request was pending, no communication can be sent to the Manager of Balaji Fillling Station, Tirumala for vacation of the premises, without communication of the decision of the Board of Trustees to the 2nd respondent- Oil Company. Separate counter affidavits are filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by the Executive Officer of the 1st respondent-Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam, while admitting that the site in question is allotted on lease for running a fuel station in favour of the 2nd respondent, it is stated that in view of the expiry of lease, the Board of Trustees of the Devastanam has taken a decision to reject the request for extension of lease and to call for fresh tenders. In the counter, it is categorically stated that the wording of tender notification is ambiguous and that the notification issued by the 1st respondent-Devastanam is not for issuance of licence for dealing in petroleum products, as alleged in the writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the Divisional Retail Sales Manager of the 2nd respondent-Indian Oil Corporation, it is stated that on their request, lease was granted in their favour and they have also made a request for extension of lease by increasing the lease amount. It is further stated that as the licence is in favour of the 2nd respondent-Company, the 1st respondent-Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam cannot issue any tender notification inviting bids for grant of licence to sell the petroleum products. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu, appearing for petitioner and Sri S.Venkateswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Devastanam. Although it is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have issued tender notification inviting bids for grant of licence to run the filling station, the same has been clarified in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent-TTD that they have not intended to invite bids for grant of licence to sell oils in the filling station at Tirumala, as mentioned in the impugned notification. At the same time, it is to be noticed that upon a reading of the impugned notification, it is clear that bids are invited for grant of licence to sell oils at a filling station at Tirumala. While it is open for the 1st respondent-Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam to take steps for eviction of the lessee in case they intend to invite fresh bids for grant of lease, but on the ground that the lease in favour of the 2nd respondent-Corporation has come to an end, they cannot issue any notification inviting bids for grant of licence to sell oils. As it is clarified in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent-Devastanam that they have not intended to invite bids for grant of licence, the impugned notification is liable to be set aside, in view of the clear wording in the said notification that tenders are invited for grant of licence to sell oils. In this case, it is also to be noticed that lease is in favour of 2nd respondent-Oil Company, granted by the 1st respondent-Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam, which is the owner of the site in question. When a request is made on behalf of 2nd respondent for extension of lease on enhanced rate, it is for them to take steps either to accept such proposal or to take steps for evicting the said lessee. When the 2nd respondent-Corporation is in possession of the site pursuant to the lease, it is not open for the 1st respondent-Devastanam to invite bids for grant of lease in respect of the site also. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice, dated 10th August 2007, issued in Roc.No.PR4/ 13299/Advt.181/2007, is set aside. However, it is made clear that it is open for the 1st respondent-Devastanam either to accept the proposal of the 2nd respondent-Oil Corporation to extend the present lease on increased lease amount, or to take steps in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ______________________ 29th November 2011 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr