P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J :- This appeal arises out of the order dated 10.6.2009 in WP No.7258 of 2009. The appellant herein was not a party to the writ proceedings, but aggrieved by the directions of the learned Single Judge he preferred the present writ appeal.

2. The issue before the learned Judge was with regard to the auction of the licence for collection of parking fee by the S.V.V.S. Devasthanam, Kanipakam, Chittoor District, (for brevity, 'the Devasthanam'), the third respondent herein. The proposed licence period was from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010.

3. In the first instance, the Devasthanam issued tender notification dated 25.2.2009 for auction of the said licence. The auction was conducted on 20.3.2009, wherein the writ petitioner, SR. Niranajan, the first respondent herein, was declared the successful bidder with the highest bid of Rs.12,15,000/-. The Devasthanam sought ratification of the auction from the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, (for brevity, 'the Commissioner'), the second respondent herein. However, the Commissioner vide proceedings dated 31.3.2009 cancelled the auction and directed conduct of a fresh auction as per rules. Pursuant thereto, the Devasthanam issued the second tender notification on 4.4.2009 proposing to conduct the auction afresh on 13.4.2009. Challenging the said auction, S.R. Niranjan, the successful bidder in the first auction, filed the writ petition.

4. While admitting the writ petition, this Court permitted the second auction to be conducted, but directed that the same should not be finalized until further orders. - It appears that the auction was held on 23.4.2009 and the writ petitioner, S.R. Niranjan, also participated therein, submitting a bid for Rs.31,52,000/-. The appellant before us, C. Sreedhar Naidu, was the highest bidder at Rs.32,05,000/-. However, the bids were not finalized as per the interim orders of this Court in the writ petition. Upon the vacate stay petition filed by the Devasthanam, the learned Single Judge took up the main writ petition itself for disposal.

5. The contention of the writ petitioner before the learned Judge was that there was no justification for cancellation of the first auction; more so, as no reasons had been furnished by the Commissioner for such a step. The Devasthanam, on the other hand, supported the said auction pointing out that the Commissioner is empowered to refuse or ratify the auction. The Devasthanam also contended that as the writ petitioner had participated in the second auction, he could not assail the cancellation of the first auction thereafter.

6. The learned Judge, having found that the Commissioner had the power to either confirm or reject the auction, held that the Commissioner was under an obligation to record reasons in the event he rejected ratification. The learned Judge further found that the Commissioner had not been forthcoming with proper reasons for cancellation of the first auction. However, taking note of the fact that a second auction had already been held with the permission of this Court and the Devasthanam had secured much higher bids than that offered by the writ petitioner in the first auction; c1ear1y indicating that the parking lot in question had the potential to secure higher amounts, the learned Judge held that the interest of Devasthanam should not be jeopardized and that it should not be put to financial loss. The learned Judge therefore expressed his disinclination to set aside the order of the Commissioner dated 31.3.2009 cancelling the first auction.

7. It appears that at this stage the writ petitioner who had participated in the second auction offered to raise his bid over and above that secured in the second auction. Taking note of this offer and the fact that the bids had not been finalized, the learned Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the Devasthanam to fix the minimum upset price at Rs.32,04,000/- and negotiate with the writ petitioner and the highest bidder for increasing their o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document