Dismissed

S.Vishnavi v. The State of Telagnana and 2 others

Telangana HC12 Apr 2022WP/18346/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, at Herself, disposed of two petitions challenging a tender notice issued by a temple governing body for the maintenance of a Kalyanamandapam. The court held that the petitioner's lease had expired, thus negating any vested right to prevent the public tender process.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without costs; the petitioner is left open to participate in the tender.

S.Vishnavi Vs The State of Telagnana and 2 others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 18346 OF 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

S.Vishnavi, W/o. Vishnu Charan, aged about 45^years, Occ. Propritrix of Tirumala Enterprises, H.No.3-6-369/8/1, Street No.2, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶6

..PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

1 The State of Telagnana, Endowments Depadment, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

¶9

The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Tilak Road, Hyderabad.

¶10

Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta, Rep. by^its Executive Officer-

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that^{in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lVandamus declaring the Notice lnviting the^{Tender by the 3rd respondent} for lease and license for annual maintenance of^{Kalyanamandapamat} Bharkatpura, Hyderabad, is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional^{and in violation of} Articles 14 and^'1 9 (1)(g) of the Constitution of lndia and also contrary^{to the} Orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.15923^{of 2021} ,^{daled147.2021} and set aside the same, consequently direct^{the 3rd respondentto hand overthe} possession of the Kalyanamandapam to the petrtioner as directed by this Honble Court in W.P.No.'1 5923 of 2021 dated^14.7.2021.

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶14

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 to} stay all further^{proceedings pursuant} to the^{Notice lnviting the Tenderby the 3rd} respondent for lease and license for annual^{maintenance of Kalyanamandapam} at Bharkatpura, Hyderabad^{pendingdisposal of the writpetition.}

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V^{V N NARAYANARAO} Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 &^2: GP^{FOR ENDOWMENTS} Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: SRl.^{JAGAN MOHAN REDDY KOTHA (SC} FOR LNSV DEVASTHANAM)

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER.

¶17

,/,

¶18

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A,ABHISHEK^REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1.8346 of²⁰²²

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the^{petitioner,the learnedGovernment} Pleader for Enclowments appearing for^{respondentNos.1 and 2, and} Sri K Jagar.r^{Mohan Recldy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for} respont-lent No.3 - Sri Lakshmi^{NarasimhaSwamy Vari Devasthanam,} Yar.lagirigu tta. With their cousent, the Writ^{Petition is disposedof at the} sLrge of a.l n-rissior-r itself.

¶22

Challenging the Notice Inviting^{Tender issued by the respondent} No.3 Tempie for Lease and Licence for^{Annual Maintenance of} Kalyanamandapam at Barkathpura,^{Hyderabad,the petitionerhas filedthe} present writ petition.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner has^{stated that on an earlier} occasion, the petitioner has approached^{this Courtand filed W.P.No.15923} of 2021. anci this Court has clisposed of^{the said Writ Petition pirieorder} clatecl 14.07.2021 clirecting the responclents to^{permit the petitionerto} continue the lease periocl for a period^{of one} vear^{by granting fresh leasein} her favour. Thc learned counsel has^{furtherstated that if one year extension} is taken flom the date of passing of the orcler^{.e., 1,4.07.2021, the official}

¶24

¶25

respondents are obligated to permit the petitioner to continue^{to tlrairrtain} the Kalyanamandapam of the respondent No.3 Temple till July,^{2022. But,} without considering the same, the respondent No.3-Temple has^issuedthe impugned tender notice inviting bids for maintenance of^the very^same Kalyanamandapam, and therefore, prayed to set aside^{the impugned tender} notice.

¶26

Per conlra, Sri K. Jagan Mohan Reddy, the learned Standing^Counsel, has vehemently opposed the very maintair.rability^{of the writ petition,and} has stated that originally, the lease period granted in^{favour of thc} petitioner was from September, 2019 till the enci of September',2020.^But, subsequently, by virtue of the order dated 14.07.2021,^{passedby this Court} in W.P.No.15923 of 2021, the lease period was extended^{ti1l Septernlrer,} 2021. The learned Standing Counsel has drawn the attention of this^Court to the order dated 14.07.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.15923 ot^2021, wherein this Court has directed the petitioner to clear the arrears of iease amount within one month from the date of passing of the said^{order, and} on such clearance, the respondent No.3 - Temple was directed^{to permit the} petitioner to continue the lease period for the Year 2021 without^any enhancement of the lease amount. The learned Standing^{Counsel has} further stated that the petitioner is not agreeable to the^{conditions and tl-rat} she has to pay an amount of Rs.47,00,000/- towarcls^{arrears of rent.}

¶27

¶28

Acimittedly, the lease periocl of^the Petitioner^{encled in September.,} 2020. However, by virtue of^{the order dated14.07.2021,passedby this} Court in W.P.No.15923 of^{2027, the lease period was extendedby one year} i.e.,, till the end of September ,^{202'1.Oncethe lease periodwas ended, the} petitiofier has no vested right^{tocontinue tomaintain the} I(alyanamandapam beyond^{the lease period. If the petitioner has any} interest in continuing^{lease period, she has to necessarilyparticipate in the} open tender called for^{by the respondentNo.3. Therefore, this Courtdoes} not fincl any merit in the^{present wlit} Petition^{warrantinginterference} under Article 226 of Constitution^{of India.}

¶29

The writ petition is, accordingly,^{dismissed. However, it is left open} to the petitioner to^{participatein the impugned tender called for by the} rc.spondeut No.3, if she^{is so aclvisecl.}

¶30

At this stage, the learned^{counselfor the petitionerhas stated that} various articles belonging to^{the petitionel are still with the respondent} No.3 - Temple, and that she will^{makea representationto the officials of} the respondent No.3 -^{Temple and the officialsof the respondentNo'3 -} Temple may be directed^{to handoverthe articles to the petitioner.}

¶31

¶32

¶33

Having regard to the above made submission, the petitioner is

¶34

directed to make a representation to the officials of the respondent No.3 -

¶35

Temple within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such representation being made, the officials of the respondcnt No.3 - Temple shall consicler the sarne on its own merits anr.l pass necessary orc'lers within a period of two weeks thereof

¶36

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closec{

¶37

There sl-rall be no order as to costs

SD/-K.SAILES

ASSISTANT REGIST R

,TRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary,^{Endowments Department, Stateof Telagnana,} Secretariat Building, S6cretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶45

The Commissioner, Endowments^{Department,TilakRoad, Hyderabad'}

¶46

The Executive Officer,^{Sri Lakshmi Narasimha SwamyVari Devasthanam,} Yadagirigutta.

¶47

One CC to SRl. V V N^{NARAYANA RAO, Advocate.} [OPUC]

¶48

Two CCs to GP FOR ENDOWMENTS,^{High Court for the Stateof Telangana} at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶49

One CC to SRl. JAGAN IUOHAN^{REDDY KOTHA,SC for LNSV} Devasthanam. [OPUC]

¶50

Two CD Copies. 8. One Spare Copy. \

CYS^P

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1210412022

ORDER

I C'
I t
8\v
c a
3 [ Jl]L 2022
o+.1
\ */
,/)7
lr ,) s l\1

¶57

WP.No.18 2022,'

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT^PETITION

¶59

WITHOUT COSTS

S.Vishnavi v. The State of Telagnana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Vishnavi v. The State of Telagnana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Gaurav Contracts Co. Vs The Singareni Colleries Company Limited

Sri Sajja Rajasekhar Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

A.Balaiah Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and 2 Other

Sk.Firoju Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

M/s Karthikeya Infra Developers Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Prajapati Constructions and Developers Vs The State of Telangana