Boreddy Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. To, Sd/- N NAGAMF/iA ASSISTANT REGIS i RAR //TRUE COPY// $ * SECTION OFFICER
Judgment
#1. Boreddy Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o Thimma Reddy (Late), Aged about 38 Years, Occ: Business, R/o D.No. 2-3-98, Devasthanam Quarters, Srisailam, Nandyal District
#2. Boreddy Ramakrishna Reddy, Thimma Reddy (Late), Aged about 41 Years, Occ: Business, R/o D.No.2-3-98 Srisailam, Nandyal District Devasthanam Quarters AND ...PETITIONERS
#1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Velgapudi, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Guntur District. Rep, by its Principal Secretary.
#2. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Goilapudi, Vijayawada 3. , Srisailam, Sri Brahamramaba Mallikarjuna Swamyvarla Devasthanam Nandyal District, Rep. by its Executive Officer ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution Circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, pleased to issue the High Court may be an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in respondent in dated 22.06,2025 for leasing out the leasehold the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the issuing auction of India praying that in the notification Dormitory Place situated at Mallikarjuna Sadan. Ground Floor rights of Nandali) besid Canara Bank, Srisailam, Nandyal District on 01.07.2025 as bad illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction and violative of articles 14, and 21 of Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural justice notification dated 22.06.2025 issued and consequently set aside the auction by the 3rd respondent by directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioners extending the lease by considering representation dated 20.06.2025. Dormitory by subject lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi 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 direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners Dormitory situated at Mallikarjuna Sadan, Ground Floor Bank, beside Canara Srisailam, suspending the auction notification dated 22.06.2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: D V SASIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI T. VEND GOPAL, SC (Nandali) Nandyal District FOR The Court made the following: ORDER ENDOWMENTS APHC010313402025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 15642/2025 Between: Boreddy Satyanarayana Reddy and others ...Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: D V Sasidhar Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Endowments The Court made the following order: Heard Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Sri T.Venu Gopal, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3.
#2. It is contended that the petitioners are the existing leaseholders of a dormitory belonging to the 3'"'^ respondent temple, at Srisailam, Initially, the petitioners were granted a license to operate the said dormitory in 2013, and the same has been extended either through the proceedings of the temple itself or through the process of public auction, whereunder the petitioners were < declared as successful bidder tilM 3.08.2025.
#3. It IS contended that the petitioners, aggrieved by the issuance of a * Tender Notification dated 22.06.2025 by the 3^^ respondent, calling for a public .auction of the leasehold rights over the subject property, filed the instant writ petition. The petitioners have stated that they submitted a representation dated 20.06.2025 to the 3^^^ respondent requesting extension of the existing lease. Despite the same, the 3^ respondent proceeded to i . an advertisement in newspapers and notice inviting tenders, for auction of the leasehold rights over the subject property. •
#4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while the temple authorities have granted extension i respect shops/dormitories, however, the same has been denied to the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners’ representation is still pending before the 3^^" respondent and, therefore, prays for an appropriate direction to be issued to the authorities to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders.
#5. Sri T. Venu Gopal, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the petitioners have been in occupation of the subject premises ' since 2013 as leaseholders. He submits that every case must be examined on its own merits, the petitioners a matter of right cannot ask for extension of lease. He further argues that the public auction is scheduled tomorrow, under such circumstances, consideration of the petitioners' representation at this stage does not arise. He further submits that the petitioners are at liberty to participate in the public auction. 3
#6. Having regard to the submissions advanced by both the learned counsel, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the 3^^ respondent to consider the representation dated 20.06.2025 stated to have been filed by the petitioners before the 3'^ respondent and pass appropriate orders within ten days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
#7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. To, Sd/- N NAGAMF/iA ASSISTANT REGIS i RAR //TRUE COPY// $ * SECTION OFFICER
#1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Velgapudi, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
#2. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Gollapudi, Vijayawada
#3. The Executive Officer, Sri Brahamramaba Mallikarjuna Swamyvarla Devasthanam, Srisailam, Nandyal District.
#4. One CC to Sri D. V. Sasidhar, Advocate [OPUC]
#5. One CC to Sri T. Venu Gopal, SC for Endowments[OPUC]
#6. Two CC’s to GP for Endowments, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT]
#7. Three CD Copies. HIGH COURT DATED:30/06/2025 ORDER WP No.15642 of 2025 f sKU-m ^ . Curreni becnon ^ m DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 30 Jun 2025. The bench was KIRANMAYEE, KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.