Petitioners challenged an auction for leasehold rights on lands they cultivated, alleging collusion. The court observed the respondent's counsel stated the authority cancelled previous bids due to low bids and would hold a fresh auction. Hence, the petition was held infructuous and dismissed.
No 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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION No. 12739, 12740, 12769 and 12773 OF 2010
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri V.T.M.Prasad, Learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent – Devastanam. At their request, the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.
The petitioners herein allege that, though they have been paying makta regularly, the respondents had, in collusion with the villagers of Navara, conducted an auction for grant of leasehold rights, of the lands under their cultivation, behind their back, and had awarded leasehold rights in favour of those who had bid just between one to four bags more than what the petitioners had been paying as makta, for the previous years, pursuant to leasehold rights granted in their favour earlier.
When the matter came up on 09.06.2010,
Sri V.T.M.Prasad, Learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent – Devastanam, sought time to obtain instructions. Today, the Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the competent authority had already taken a decision to cancel the auction as the bids received were very low. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that a fresh auction would be held giving notice as prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short ‘2003 Rules’).
As the competent authority has already taken a decision to cancel the bids received earlier, and invite fresh bids, the cause in the writ petition does not survive.
The Writ Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. No costs.
RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J
Date:10.06.2010 usd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition survives when the competent authority decided to cancel the previous auction and invite fresh bids.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners
The Endowments Department/Respondents
Devastanam
RAMESH RANGANATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
