Petitioners sought renewal of leases of shops in an endowments shopping complex against a tender notice issued under the Endowments Act. Respondents noted the lease period had expired on 31.03.2014 and petitioners continued only due to the interim order. No cause surviving, the writ petition was closed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
APHC010183772011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3310]
TUESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 5030/2011
Between:
K. Jagadeeswari & 5 Ors. and Others
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Prl Secy Rev Dept 2 Ors and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
The Court made the following:
2
ORDER :-
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-
“… to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not renewing the leases in favour of the petitioners for shop Nos.1, 5, 8, 9, 11 and STD Booth in the 3rd respondent’s Shopping Complex in Card Parking Area, but lease for Shop No.1 opposite Annadanam is extended for 3 years in favour of M.R.Vara Prasad by enhancing 50% over and above existing rents by exercising the powers under section 82 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and rules made there under issuing, e-Procruement Tender Notice Rc.No.A1/508/2011, dated 16.02.2011 is contrary to the rules and not following the directions issued by the 1st respondent in Memo No.20175/Endowments-1(2)/2010-1, dated 18.05.2010 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and contrary to the well established principles of law.”
2. At the stage of admission, this Court has passed an interim order
on 01.03.2011, which reads as follows:
“.....Pending further orders, there shall be interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to tender notice, dated 16.02.2011, to the extent of shop Nos.1, 5, 8, 9, 11 and STD Booth in respondent No.3’s shopping complex in car parking area.”
on behalf of Mr. E.Sambasiva Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3.
3
period was expired on 31.03.2014 itself, basing on the interim order granted by this Court on 01.03.2011, the petitioners are still continuing in the subject shops and STD Booth. In view of the same, no cause survives in the present writ petition and it may be closed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Dated: 12.11.2024 SCS
4
166
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 5030/2011
Date: 12.11.2024
SCS
1 issue framed by the court
Should the respondents' non-renewal of leases for shops in respondent No.3's shopping complex via tender notice be declared illegal and arbitrary?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K. Jagadeeswari & 5 Ors. and Others
Prl Secy Rev Dept 2 Ors and Others
K Manmadha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
