Dismissed

Kayala Krishnarjuna Rao, v. The Commissioner and Endowments

Telangana HC8 Dec 2009WP/18337/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ directing respondent to extend a hotel licence granted for one year to cover the remaining two years of the tender period. The court found the competent authority had validly approved only one year and stays away from deciding if the authority was entitled to extend the lease.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking declaration of illegality and direction to extend the licence for two more years is dismissed.

Kayala Krishnarjuna Rao, Vs The Commissioner and… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT:

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.18337 of 2009

¶6

Between:

¶7

Kayala Krishnarjuna Rao

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Commissioner and Endowments, Hyderabad and another

¶11

..... RESPONDENTS

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This court ordered notice before admission on 02-09-2009.

¶14

2. The second respondent filed counter-affidavit.

¶15

3. Sri K. Sreenivas, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and would maintain that as per the conditions in the notification the period of licence was for a period of three years to rung the hotel in question, in second respondent Devasthanam and the petitioner became the highest bidder and he was granted licence to run the hotel. But, however, the first respondent approved the said tender only for a period of

¶16

one year without recording any reasons whatsoever why for the rest of the period the same had been negatived. The counsel also would contend that in the light of the same especially in the light of the fact that since even to this stage no fresh notification had been issued calling for fresh tenders. It would be just and proper to consider the case of the petitioner for extension of lease for the rest of the two years also.

¶17

4. On the contrary the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments would maintain that, in the light of the facts and circumstances since the competent authority had confirmed the licence only for a period of one year the petitioner has no enforceable legal right.

¶18

5. Sri VTM. Prasad, the learned counsel representing the second respondent had taken this court through para Nos.4 to 6 of the counter-affidavits and would maintain that in the light of the stand taken by the second respondent inasmuch as the second respondent is further proceeding to take steps to issue notification for calling the tenders, it may not be just and proper at this stage to interfere.

¶19

6. Heard the counsel.

¶20

7. The writ petition is filed praying for the relief of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in not extending the licence which was granted on 01-06-2009 in Rc.No.C1/4408/2008 violating the condition No.2 in Tender Notification of the second respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to extend petitioner’s licence which was granted on 0106-2009 in Rc.No.C1/4408/ 2008 and pass such other suitable

¶21

orders.

¶22

8. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the second respondent issued tender notification calling bid for running canteen in second respondent department at first floor, shopping complex at car parking area for selling vegetarian food and open tender was on 22-11-2008 at 11.00 a.m., at Bhavani Diksha Mandapam. Certain conditions were imposed in the said notification. As per the tender notification the bidders who were willing to participate in the above tender had to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- Demand Draft along with residential proof and submit the same to the second respondent. It is also stated that as per the tender notification dated 09-11-2008 the petitioner had submitted tender application along with Demand Draft as prescribed by the second respondent and the second respondent imposed certain conditions in the said notification and the period of licence is for three years to run the hotel in the said premises of second respondent Devasthanam. After opening of the tender, as the petitioner was the highest bidder, he was granted licence to run the hotel, as the petitioner fulfilled all the relevant conditions imposed in the said Tender Notification.

¶23

9. It is further stated that the second respondent issued proceedings in Rc.No.C1/4408/2008 dated 01-06-2009 that the petitioner was granted licence to run the hotel in the second respondent premises for a period of one year commencing from 05-12-2008 to 04-12-2009 only, as the first respondent approved the tender for one year in his proceedings Rc.No.G2/12688/2009-1 dated 31-03-2009 and directed the petitioner to enter agreement with the second respondent. It is also stated that since the grant of licence to run the hotel in the second respondent Devasthanam the

¶24

petitioner has been running the shop without any remarks whatsoever. It is also the case of the petitioner that the second respondent has not chosen to extend the licence for further two years as per the tender notification condition No.2 and in turn trying to cancel his tender. It is stated that till today the petitioner has been running hotel without any complaint whatsoever. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner approached this court.

¶25

10. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent it is stated that the second respondent had issued tender notice calling the bid for running a canteen in second respondent Devasthanam, in the first floor, shopping complex, situated in car parking area for preparation and selling vegetarian food and meals for a period of two years through Rc.No.C1/4408/2008 dated 09-11-2008 in Andhra Jyothi, Vijayawada City Edition, dated 10-11-2008 and the terms and conditions of the open auction that may be conducted on 22-112008 were circulated. According to the terms and conditions, the person who participated in the public auction shall deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by Cash or Demand Draft towards Earnest Money Deposit with the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam before he participated in the public auction. 11. Further it is stated that the Devasthanam has conducted public auction on 22-11-2008, the writ petitioner was declared as highest bidder on payment of monthly licence fees an amount of Rs.33,000/- and according to the further conditions of the auction the writ petitioner is liable to pay one year monthly licence fee within 48 hours after the completion of the said auction irrespective of the EMD amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The remaining two years licence fee is payable in two equal instalments in the

¶26

12^th month and 24^th month and in case of default the petitioner is liable to pay interest at 24% p.a. on each month arrears. The petitioner had addressed a letter dated 01-12-2008 to permit him to deposit an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.96,000/- on 01-02-2009. The premises for running the canteen was delivered to him on 05-12-2008 and since then the writ petitioner is running the canteen. The Executive Officer of the second respondent Devasthanam was placed the same before the specified authority in Rc.No.C1/4408/2008 dated 07-01-2009 requesting the specified authority to approve the same. But the specified authority in its resolution No.176 dated 16-02-2009 approved the licence period for a period of one year only. The Executive Officer of the second respondent Devasthanam had submitted a report to the Commissioner Endowments Department, Hyderabad who is the first respondent herein to approve the licence period for one year commencing from 05-12-2008 to 04-122009 for a period of one year on a monthly licenc of Rs.33,000/per month. Having received the report submitted by the second respondent herein in turn the first respondent approved the licence and issued proceedings in R.C.No.G2/ 12688/09-1 dated 31-032009 in favour of the writ petition herein for a period of one year on a monthly rent of Rs.33,000/- and also the first respondent herein directed the Executive Officer of the second respondent to obtain adequate security and registered lease deed from the highest bidder as per rules.

¶27

12. It is further stated that the Executive Officer of the second respondent had addressed a letter to the writ petitioner herein in its Rc.No.C1/4408/2008 dated 01-06-2009 requesting to come and execute a registered lease

¶28

deed at his expenses immediately after receipt of the said letter.

¶29

13. It is also averred that the proceedings dated 01-06-2009 which is sought to be declared as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice is only a letter addressed to the petitioner requesting to come and execute a registered deed at his expenses failing which action will be taken against him in accordance with the terms and conditions of the auction notification dated 09-11-2008. The writ petitioner has got knowledge that the licence period in which the period is approved for one year only commencing from 05-12-2008 to 04-12-2009 on payment of the licence fee an amount of Rs.33,000/- per month by the specified authority under its resolution No.176 dated 16-022009 and the first respondent herein in its proceedings in R.C.No.G2/12688/09-1 dated 31-03-2009 and as such the petitioner is now estopped to contend that the lease hold rights auction in pursuance of the notification dated

¶30

09-11-2008 is conducted for a period of three years and as such he entitled to run his canteen in the lease hold premises for two more years after 04-12-2009.

¶31

14. Further stand had been taken that the writ petitioner is put to strict proof that he has fulfilled all the relevant conditions imposing the tender notification and certain further facts also had been narrated. It is not in serious controversy that though initially licence period was specified as three (3) years the fact remains that the competent authority confirmed it only for a period of one year. It is pertinent to note that when the period was limited by the competent authority in deviation of the terms and conditions specified in the tender notification, the writ petitioner could have chosen to challenge that portion, but having not chosen to do so,

¶32

the petitioner having completed one year, at the time of lapse of the period, approached this court by filing the present writ petition. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that the respondents had not recorded any reasons whatsoever for non-extending the rest of the period i.e., two (2) years and for limiting it only for one year. This court is not inclined to express any opinion. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the respondents are at liberty to consider the case of the petitioner, if the rules governing the same permit them to do so. Except making this observation, no further relief can be granted.

¶33

15. Accordingly, the writ petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶34

___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J

¶35

December 8, 2009. PN

¶36

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA

¶37

WRIT PETITION No.18337 of 2009

¶38

December 8, 2009.

Kayala Krishnarjuna Rao, v. The Commissioner and Endowments

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kayala Krishnarjuna Rao, v. The Commissioner and Endowments

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

Konjeti Pullaiah Vs The District Collector, Nellore

J.Laxmikantha Reddy Vs Bandela William Peter

Kurva Chinna Narsappa, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Edavelli Sailaja, Vs The Government of a.P., Rep by its Principal Special -

Nekkanti Nageswara Rao, Vs The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Avatar Mehar Baba Premalaya Kendram Trust Vs The District Collector