WP/22491/2004 of Pandi Srinivasa Rao, Vs The Commissioner, Government of A.P., on 27 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 22491 of 2004

Between:

Pandi Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, R/o.Yerrabalem Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District.

AND

..... PETITIONER

1 The Commissioner, Government of A.P., Endowments Department, Tilak Road,Hyderabad.Hyderabad.

2 Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Mangalagiri, rep.by its Executive officer,Mangalagiri, Guntur Dist.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, orany other appropriate writ, declaring the impugned proceedings vide D.Dis.No.D1-62384/2004, dt.26-11-04, issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, improperand set-aside the same, and further consequently, direct the 2nd respondent not toconduct re-auction, which is scheduled to be held on 07-12-2004, for lease holdingrights for sale of "Jaggery water" ( Panakam), Cocunuts, Photos, and other PoojaDravyams, at the up hill of Sri Panakala Laxmi Narasimha Swamy, and as well as atthe premises of Sri lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Mangalagiri, Guntur District,as illegla, arbitrary and contrary to rules of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable andHindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Immovable properties and other rights(other than Agriculture lands) Leases and Licences Rule, 2003, and to pass otherorder or orders.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.METTACHENDRA SEKHAR RAO

Counsel for Respondent No1: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Smt.G.Indrani The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:

The petitioner challenges the proceedings dated 26-11-2004, whereunder, the firstrespondent proposed to auction the lease hold rights for sale of “Jaggery Water”.The petitioner responded to an earlier tender. His offer was not approved by theCommissioner on the ground that it was too low. In the subsequent auctions,pursuant to the impugned notification, the petitioner did not participate. The highestbid was Rs.5,25,000/-. Through order dated 10-12-2004, this Court directed therespondents to ascertain the willingness of the petitioner to be the lessee at thatamount. The petitioner declined.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader forEndowments and learned standing counsel for the second respondent.

After going through the record and observing the proceedings that have taken placefrom time to time, this Court finds that no illegality, as such, has been committed bythe respondents. The petitioner did not avail the opportunity afforded to him.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. The respondents shall refund the amount,which is paid by the petitioner pursuant to the earlier bid. No order as to costs.

________________

27-12-2004

kdl

To