M/s. Sree Pavani Collections, Vs the State of Ap

M/S. SREE PAVANI COLLECTIONS,, REP.BY ITS PROPRIETRIX SMT. N PAVANI, W/O N V. D. HARI PRASAD, AGED 55 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.5-90-6, 3/3, CHANDRAMOULI NAGAR, GUNTUR - 522 007. ANDHRA PRADESH

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENDOWMENTS, SECRETARIATBUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, THULLURU MANDAL, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ENDOWMENTS, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.

¶14

SRI DURGA MALLESWARA SWAMY VARLA DEVASTHANAM, VIJAYAWADA, REP.BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INDRAKEELADRI, VIIJAYAWADA 520001

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toPleased to pass an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in insisting me to pay the remaining 50 PERCENT of the annual licence fee without allotting the promised space for 2nd VastraPrasadam counter at

¶17

2

¶18

ground floor of Mahamandapam in violation of the Tender Conditions No.10 AND 41 as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and 4 consequently direct the respondents to forthwith allot the additional 15'x15' space for VastraPrasadam counter at ground floor of Mahamandapam of Sri DurgaMalleswaraSwamyvarlaDevasthanam, Indrakeeladri, Vijayawada on rental basis and then collect the remaining 50percent of the annual licence fee in two installments and to pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith consider the representations of the petitioner for allotment 15'x15 space for 2nd VastraPrasadam counter at ground floor of Mahamandapam of Sri DurgaMalleswaraSwamyvarlaDevasthanam, Indrakeeladri, Vijayawada, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.KAPPERA KOTESWARA RAO SC for Endowments,AP Region.

¶25

2.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

3

¶28

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 6212/2026

¶30

ORDER:-

¶31

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

¶32

seeking the following reliefs:-

¶33

“ to issue a Writ, Order particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in insisting the petitioner to pay the remaining 50 % of the annual licence fee without allotting the promised space for 2^nd Vastra Prasadam counter at ground floor of Mahamandapam in violation of the Tender Conditions No.10 and 41 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith allot the additional 15'x15' space for VastraPrasadam counter at ground floor of Mahamandapam of Sri Durga Malleswara Swamyvarla Devasthanam, Indrakeeladri, Vijayawada on rental basis and then collect the remaining 50% of the annual licence fee in two instalments and to pass such other order or orders as deem fit in the circumstance of the case….”

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing

¶35

Counsel and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is declared as successful bidder pursuant to the auction notice dated 30.09.2025. Pursuant to which the petitioner complied with the terms of the auction and deposited 50% of the license fee with immediate effect for confirmation of the auction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the auction was confirmed in favour of the petitioner. As per the terms of the auction notice, the petitioner should be allotted for 15x15 space for Vastra Prasadam at ground floor of Mahamandapam. As per Clause 10 of the tender notice, it is indicated that the

¶37

4

¶38

temple will allot one place 15x15 space at free of cost and the other place will be allotted on rental basis at the premises of the subject temple. Accordingly, after confirmation of the auction in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner was allotted one place of 15x15 at uphill Ghat Road and the petitioner also expressed his willing for having another place at the rental basis as per the terms of Clause 10. Even though the petitioner requested for allotment of another place as per terms of Clause 10 of the Tender notice, the respondents did not take steps for such allotment. In the meanwhile, the respondents issued a demand notice dated 11.02.2026 directing the petitioner for payment of final amount to enter into an agreement i.e., for Rs.4,27,87,500/-. The said demand notice is assailed in this Writ Petition.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unless the petitioner was provided another space to sell Vastra Prasadam as per clause 10 of the tender notice dated 30.09.2025, the petitioner is not able to recover his total auction amount is of Rs.8,15,00,000/- excluding GST. Hence, proposed auction of the respondent is contrary to the terms of the tender notice. Therefore, the impugned proceeding is liable to be suspended.

¶40

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 furnished written instructions on 04.03.2026. Today on oral instructions, he submits that respondent No.3 temple is ready to provide additional space in another place on the rental basis in compliance of the clause 10 of the tender notice dated 30.09.2025 after having amicable discussion between the petitioner and the Execution Officer of the 3^rd respondent.

¶41

5

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the material placed on record, the fact remains that the petitioner is declared as L1 bidder pursuant to the tender notice dated 30.09.2025. It is further admitted that pursuant to the terms of the tender notice, the petitioner deposited 50% of the auction amount out of Rs.8,15,00,000/- along with GST for confirmation of sale in his favour. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner unless the petitioner was allotted additional space in addition to the guaranteed space 15x15 at uphill Ghat Road of respondent No.3, the petitioner cannot recover his highest auction amount of Rs.8,15,00,000/- is valid and sustainable. As contended by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 that in view of the clause 10 of auction notice dated 30.09.2025, now the respondents are ready to allot additional space other than the space already allotted i.e., 15x15 at uphill Ghat Road of the respondent No.3 after having amicable discussions between the petitioner and respondent No.2 at the earliest would be considered. It is further observed that in the meanwhile petitioner had paid half of the remaining balance amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- out of Rs.4,00,27,000/- in favour of the respondent and the petitioner should be paid Rs.2,27,87,500/- including GST. Whenever, the petitioner was provided additional space at ground floor of Mahamandapam as per their agreement, the petitioner should be paid rest of the amount of Rs.2,27,87,500/- with immediate effect.

¶43

In view of the reasons stated above, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to allot additional space at ground floor

¶44

6

¶45

of Mahamandapam as admitted by both the parties before the Court, within a period of three(3) weeks from today. After such allotment the petitioner shall deposit remaining auction amount as stated above, within a period of two(2) weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶47

________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

18.03.2026 TPS

7

173

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA