High Court · 2025

Judgment

3. 1 The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Endowment Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Telangana, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad. The Shree Seetharamachandra Swamy Van Devasthanam, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. Rep. by its Executive Officer.

Smt. L. Rama Devi, W/o.Not known to the petitioner, Age. lVajor, Occ. Executive Officer, Shree Seetharamachandra Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition unde-r Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or arm or more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the arbitrary action of the respondent No.3 in passing impugned orddrs vide Rc.No.A5125412022, dtd.2'l .1O.2024, cancelling the petitioner's license rights for maintenances of Sri Rama Nilayam Choultry granted from '16.01.2023 to 15.01.2026 (Three years), based on the Hon'ble High Court orders passed in W.A.No.1196 of 2023 dtd.03.10.2024, and opposed to orders passed in W.P.No.'19322 of 2023 dtd.10.1 1 .2023, is without jurisdiction and with a malafide intention, also beyond the scope of notice and final notice dhd.22.06.2023 and 08.07 -20113 and without considering the petitron€)rs explanation dtd.11.10.2024, is illegal, void and opposed to articles 14, 15t.,,:,t1 and 300_4 of constitution of lndia, including opposed to rules as per T he (Telangana) charitable and -lind u Religion lnstitution and Endowments imrnc vable properties and other rights (other than Agricultural Lands) Leases and Lir:enses Rules 2003 and consequently to cirect the 3'd respondent to sblaside the irnpugned orders dtd.21 .10 2024 and to direct the 3rd respondent to handovr:r the licensed premises in questio-r to the petitioner herein till completion of r.he entire lease period or alternativ:ly to grant relief 'as per condition no 1? of the tender notification by returring the amounts collected from the petitioner along with interest by direcling the 1st respondent to take departmental actiorr against the 4th respondent In misusing the powers by playing fraud and discharging the functions beyond permissible r- nder law. - lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumsrances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court rnay be pleased to direct the Respondents; to Process the passport Application of the petitioner further for its reissuance/ rr-'neural without any reference to its Refusal Letterr dated. .lg_06_ 2024, in the interest c,f Justice. Counsel for the lDetitioner: SRI MUMMANENI SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the l?espondent Nos.1 and 2: SRt MANGILAL NAIK, GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the llespondent No.3: SRt VIDYA SAGAR, REPRESENTTNG SRI SA1 PRASEN GUNDAVARM,S.C FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the lRespondent No.4: SRI GlRl KRISHNA The Court made the lollowing: ORDER -7 n I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL II/RIT PETITION No.36521 OF 2024 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of tndia seeking the following relief/s:- ".-- to issue Writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ o{ ManuJamu.s, declaring the arbitrary actron o[ the respondent No-3 rn passing impugned orders vide Rc.No.AS/254 /2022, dated 21.1O 2024, cancelling the petitioner's license rights for maintenances of 'Sri Rama Nilayam Choultry' granted from 16.01.2023 to 15.01,.2026 (Three vears), based on the Hon'ble High Court orders passed in w.A.No.1 196 of 2023 dt.o3.10 2024, and opposed to orders passed in W.P.No.19322 of 2023 dt.10.11.2023, is without .iurisdiction and with a malafrde intention, also bevond the scope of notice and tinal notice dt.22.O6.2O23 & Oa.O7.2023 and without considering the petitioner's explanation dl.l I )'O.2024 is illegal, void and opposed to articles 14, 19,21 & 3OO-A of Constitution of India, including opposed to rules as per The (Telangana) Charitable and Hindu Religion Institution and Endowments immovable properties and other rights (Other than Agricultural Lands) trases and Licenses Rutes, 2OO3 and consequently to direct the 3d respondent to set-aside the impugned orders dt.21.1O.2O24 and to direct the 3'd respond'eni to handover the licensed premises in question to the petitioner herein till completion of the entire lease period or alternatively to grant relief as per condition no.17 of the tender notification by returning the amounts collccted from the petitioner along with interest by directing the lsr respondent to take departrnental actron against the 4th respondent in misusing the powers by playing fraud and discharging the functions beyond permissible under law, and to pass such other order or orders ..."

2. Heard Mr.Mlrmmaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Mangilal Naik, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos. 1 arrd 2, Mr'Vidya Sagar, learned senior counsel representing Mr.Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel for respondent No'3 and Mr'P'Giri Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.4'

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No'3-Temple had invited tenders for grant of license for a period of three years for maintenance of Sri Rama Nilayam Choultry !f lttlng tenders 2 on 09.12.2022; that the petitioner was the highest bidder and the entire al r;tion amount was paid to respondent No.3. Responden[ Nc.3 sent a proposal to respondent No.2 for grant of license in lavotrr of the petitioner for a.period of r.hrss ,..... Respondenr_ Nc.2 approved the auction procer:dings. It is stated that , respondent No.3 upon obtaining agreemenl from the petitioner on 0 1.05.2023, requested the petitioner to pay rent of Rs. 11,40,0Ct0/ ; that Rs.4,5O,OOO/_ was already pra.id by the petitioner rvhich u,as received by respondent No..J and the remaining zrmount was directed to be paid v,ithin six months. Respondent No.3, without issuing any agreement, in fzr.vour of the petitioner, with a mala fid.e intention to tak.e steps for cancellation of li<:ense, basing on vague allegations, highhandedly issueil hotice datecl 22.06.2023 in connection *,.ith ca, cerlation of p6titiolAer's licer se; that the petitioner had submitted his detailed expleirration but rvithout conducting any enquiry, r..espondent No.3 issued linal show cause notice dated Og.O7.2O2l,3 as per the Condition No. 1i' of the Tender Conditions. Subseqr-rently, the petitioner's iicerLse was cancelled on 2O.O7.2023. Aggrteved by the same, tLe petitioner preferred w.p.No. 19322 of 2(.123 before this Court. Vid<: order dated 10. ll.2)23 in W.p.No, 19322 of 2023, the Writ I)etition was allowed and the proceedings dated /,, J 2O.O7.2O23 passed by the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad cancelling the petitioner's license were set aside. Assailing the same, the Endowrnents Department preferred an Appeal.

4. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 1I.IO.2024 in W.A.No.1196 of 2023 disposed of the Appea1. The operative portion of the said judgment is extracted as hereunder:- "10. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of t]:e case, it is directed that respondent No.l sha_ll frle a reply to the finat show cause notice dated 08.07.2O23 issued by the appellalt w.ithin a period of two (O2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of t}le order. Thereafter, the competent authority of the appellate-temple shall adjudicate the issue whether or not respondent No.l has committed violation of the terms and conditions of the tender ald shall take a fresh decision within a further period of three (O3) weeks from the date of receipt of the reply to the show cause notice dated OA.O7 .2023 , if any, which may be submitted by respondent No. 1. It is made clear that tJlis Court has not expressed any opinion on tJle merits of the matter. 11. To the a-foresaid extent, t.l e order dated 1O.11.2O23 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 19322 of 2023 is modifred. 12. In the'result, the Writ Appeal is disposed oI".

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not alforded an opportunity of hearing and without conducting an enquiry, respondent No.3 had passed the impugned order, which is abuse of process of law. Therefore, he ( seeks to allow this Writ Petition 4

6. Learne:d senior counsel appearing for responderrt No.3, by filing counter affidavit, contends that the petition er, in his explanation dared 26.06.2023, clearly accepted thrrt he has neither paid the ESI and PF dues nor reririttecl the GrST as paid by the gues'ts to the Department/authorities. Therefo,:-e, keeping in view thr: ilregularities committed by the petitioner, the respondent rauthorities have cancelled the license gratrted to the petitioner, trt run the choultry. Hence, he seeks to drsmiss this Writ Petition.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 concedes to the submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.3.

8. Having regard to the submissions of all the learned counsel, upon perusillg c,f the judgment dated 11.1O.2O24 passed by the Hon'ble Divisrion Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 1196 of 2023 and. on ca-reful scrutiny of the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that as per Condition No.17 stipulated under the Conditions lltr ILblic auction to be held at 1.he Office of the Executive Officer at 11:00 A.M. on O9.72.2O2i1,, "the Executive Officer has full authority to modify the license Iirr future development of tl-re temple and to suspend the ljcense rnidway or reduce the tLme limit as necessary for the convenier_..ce of the 5 devotees. Only those who agree to these conditions are eligible to pa-rticipate in the song. In case of mid-term suspension of the license, the remaining amount will be refunded as per the elapsed license period". But in the case on hand, it is seen that the said refund is not made to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to submit an application to respondent No,3 seeking refund of the amount. On such application, the respondent No.3 shall consider the same ald pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law

9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. T. JAYAS DEPUTY REGIS E R SECTION OFFICER The Principat Secretary, Endowment Department, Secretariat, The State of Telanoana. Hvderabad. The C-ommissioner of Endowments, Government of Telangana, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad. ifrd"Executive Officer, The Shree Seetharamachandra Swamy Van Devasthanam, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District' One CC to Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, Advocate IOPUCI i*o CCt to GP for Endowments, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] o'ne CC to Sri Sai Prasen Gundavaram, Advocate[OPUC] One CC to Sri P. Giri Krishna, Advocate[OPUCI Two CD Copies To,

3. 4 5 6 7 8 TJ GJP HIGH COURT' DATED:2810312025 ORDER WP.No.36521 of 2024 C t i i I oF rE( .$' ds\ \\' l;'ilt4 + DISPOSINGi OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS