Disposed

Meesala Venkata Durga Prasad v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Dec 2024WP/28308/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an auction for temple shops alleging irregularities and collusion. The court directed the Executive Officer to address the petitioner's representation regarding one shop pending allotment while leaving the other shop's lease untouched.

What did the court decide?

Director the Executive Officer to address the petitioner's representation dated 23.11.2024 regarding Shop No. 13 within two weeks.

Meesala Venkata Durga Prasad Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DEGEMBER^^?

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR \ ?>■=
PRESENT yf
II®

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 28308 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Meesala Venkata Durga Prasad, S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, Aged about 35 years. Residing at Gollapalem Gattu, Near Water Tank, Vijayawada

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its PrI. Secretary, Endowments Department, AP Secretariat, Velgapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶11

' 2. The Commissioner of Endowments, Gollapudi, Vijayawada.

¶12

The District Collector and District Executive Magistrate, N.T.R.District. (Erstwhile District Collector, Krishna).

¶13

The Executive Officer, Sree Bhramaramba Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, (Old Shivalayam Temple),Vijayawada.

¶14

Smt.Piila Sandhya, W/o P.Ramesh, Aged about 45 Years, R/o Door No. 4-3-20, Chittinagar, Vijayawada.

¶15

Smt.Sampurnamma, Aged about 50 years, R/o. Sivalayam Street, Besides Sivalayam Temple, Vijayawada.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India^{prayingthatin} the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{theHighCourtmay} to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate^Writ, . he pleased Order or direction, declaring that Tender-cum- Public^{Auctionwhichwas} conducted on 12.11.2024 by the 4th Respondent in pursuance^totheTender Notification dated 01.11.2024 in an irregular and arbitrary^manner and thereby confirming the highest bidders for monthly^{rentof90,000/-instead} of Rs. 13,100/- for the Shop Nos. 12 and 13 of Old^{ShivalayamTemple,} Vijayawada is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the regulations prescribed^{bytheGovernment} Under Article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India^{andconsequently} directing the Respondents 2 to 4 to cancel the tender^notification dated 1.11.2024 and to conduct a fresh tender process.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} pleased to pass orders directing the 4th Respondent^{nottoallottheShops} No. 12 & 13 to the 5th and 6th Respondents till the disposal of my representation dated: 23.11.2024 pending disposal of^{themyrepresentation} dated: main Writ Petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. MADHAVI PUNNA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: M/S PADMAVATHI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6: NONE APPEARED

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

^ p

APHC010542712024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

[3333]

¶30

ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER WEDNESDAY ,THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO: 28308/2024

¶34

Between:

¶35

Meesala Venkata Durga Prasad

¶36

...PETITIONER

¶37

AND

¶38

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶39

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶41

1.MADHAV1 PUNNA

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶43

1.PADMAVATH1 PADNAVIS

¶44

2.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶45

The Court made the following:

¶46

ORDER:

¶47

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the^Constitution of India

¶48

seeking the following relief:-

¶49

“....to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, declaring that Tender-cum-Public Auction which was conducted on 12.11.2024 by the 4'^' Respondent in pursuance to the^Tender Notification dated 01.11.2024 in an irregular and arbitrary manner and thereby confirming the highest bidders for monthly rent of 90,000/- instead of Rs.13,100/- for the Shop Nos.12 and 13 of Old Shivalayam Temple, Vijayawada is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the regulations prescribed by the Government Under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently directing the Respondents 2 to 4 to cancel^{thetendernotificationdated} 1.11.2024 and to conduct a fresh tender process and pass....”

¶50

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the resident of Gollapalem Gattu, Vijayawada and is a physically challenged person suffering with Physical (Locomotor/Orthopaedic) disability. While the matter being so, on 01.11.2024, the respondent No.2 had issued a Paper Publication calling for open auction of shop Nos.12 and 13 stating that the^{Tender-Cum-Public} Auction will be conducted on 12.11.2024 at 11.00 A.M., and invited applications for participating in the open auction, for which, the petitioner had also participated in the said auction. It is further stated that the shop Nos. 12 and 13 were newly constructed shops and are set for open auction and the remaining shops were kept idle, further the Earnest Money Deposit for participating in the auction is Rs.50,000/- which is payable by way of Cash or Demand Draft, while the rent for the adjacent shops is fixed as Rs.13,100/-

¶51

per month only. Subsequently, after conducting the auction, the respondent No.4 had declared the respondent Nos.5 and 6 i.e., Smt. Pilla Sandhya and Smt. S.Smapurnamma as the successful bidders, directing them to pay Rs.90,000/- per month. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner along with nine other persons including the respondent Nos.5 and 6 have participated in the open auction and except the petitioner all others have colluded with each other and increased the bidding amount to Rs.90,000/- per month, but the fact remains that the rent for the adjacent shops is Rs.13,100/per month only. Alleging the same, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 23.11.2024 to the respondent No.4, stating that the said bidding is a collusion between the parties and requested him to not to accept the same and also to conduct an enquiry and as well as a fresh auction by cancelling the tender notification dated 01.11.2024. But, without considering the representation made by the petitioner, the respondent No.4 is going ahead to allot the shop Nos. 12 and 13 to the respondent Nos.5 and 6. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶52

Heard the Smt. Madhavi Punna, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Smt. Padmavati Padnavis, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and perused the material on record.

¶53

Today when the matter came up for hearing, learned^Government Pleader for Endowments has furnished a copy of instructions issued by the

¶54

¶55

1 I

¶56

Executive Officer, Sri Bhramaramba Malleswara Swamy Temple, Old Sivalayam, Vijayawada vide L.Dis.No.Nil/2024, dated^{25.11.2024,whereinitis} of the Tender notification dated 01.11.2024, the stated that in pursuance auction was conducted on 12.11.2024, wherein, one Smt.^{S.Smapurnamma} and one Smt. Pilla Sandhya have participated in the^{auctionandquotedthe} highest amounts for the shop Nos.12 and 13 i.e., Rs.88,000/-^{andRs.90,000/-} respectively, and as such were declared as the highest^{biddersandthereafter,} the said shops were also allotted in their favour. It is further stated that, the lease period with regard to the shop No.12 is from^{01.12.2024to30.11.2027} and with regard to the shop No.13 is from 01.03.2025^{to28.02.2028.}

¶57

On a perusal of the instructions submitted by the^{learnedGovernment} Pleader, it can be seen that the shop No. 12 was handed^{overtooneSmt.} S.Sampurnamma, who stood as the highest bidder by quoting^{Rs.90,000/-per} month and the said shop has already been allotted to^{herfortheleaseperiod} from 01.12.2024 to 30.11.2027. But, however, with regard^{totheshopNo.13,} though one Smt. P.Sandhya was declared as the highest^{bidderbyquoting} Rs.88,000/-, the lease period for the said shop is from 01.03.2025 to 28.02.2028. In view of the same, learned counsel for^{thepetitionerhasstated} that the question of allotting the shop No. 13 in favour^{ofSmt.P.Sandhya} would not arise as of now as the lease period of the^{saidshopwould} commence from 01.03.2025 to 28.02.2028. As such, he requested^thisCourt

¶58

to direct the respondent No.4 to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 23.11.2024 with regard to the shop No. 13.

¶59

In view of the same, without going into merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent No.4 to pass appropriate on the representation dated 23.11.2024 made by the petitioner, only to the extent of shop No. 13, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶60

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶61

Sdl- M SRINIVAS assistant. REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶62

SEdrto fl OFFICER

¶63

To Secretariat,

¶64

1. T ..„he Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, AP Velgapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶65

The Commissioner of Endowments, Gollapudi, Vijayawada.

¶66

3 The District Collector and District Executive Magistrate, N.T.R.District. (Erstwhile District Collector, Krishna).

¶67

4 The Executive Officer, Sree Bhramaramba Mallesw^ara^SwamyVarla Devasthanam, (Old Shivalayam Temple),Vijayawada.

¶68

One CC to Sri. Madhavi Punna, Advocate [OPUC]

¶69

Two CCs to GP For Endowments ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶70

One CC to M/S P Padmavathi, Advocate [OPUC].

¶71

Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:11/12/2024

ORDER

WP.No.28308 of 2024

ANOTy}?
X V
m
o 0 3 IAN 2e?5
^SPATCy^^J^

¶79

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Meesala Venkata Durga Prasad v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meesala Venkata Durga Prasad v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.M.Krishna Vs State of Ap

B.Eswara Rao Vs State of Ap

L.Apparao Vs State of Ap

K.S.V.V.N.T. Lakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

L. Venugopal, S/o. Late L. Dayakar Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

B Chandra Mohan Vs State of Ap,Prl.Scy,P.Raj,Guntur Dist,& 4