The Petitioner, a Publisher-cum-Chief Editor of a local news paper published from Tirupathi, challenges the legality and validity of the orders passed by the second respondent on 16.03.2012 declining to extend the period of license and requesting the petitioner to vacate the premises under his occupation within three days.

2. The writ petitioner who is a resident of Tirupathi town is a Publisher-cum-Chief Editor of an eveninger published from Tirupathi. The second respondent – Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (T.T.D. for short) was endowed with several buildings and immovable properties in and around Tirupati town, and one such building which is situate at Tilak Road, at Tirupati is known as ‘Sridevi Complex’. Room No.14, located in the II Floor of the said Sridevi Complex was allowed to be occupied by the writ petitioner pursuant to a license granted in his favour by the second respondent. The terms and conditions subject to which the license was accorded were placed at pages 59 to 61 of the paper book filed in support of this writ petition. The necessary proceedings granting the license were passed by the second respondent on 16.04.2008. In accordance with the terms of the license, the petitioner was granted permission to carry on the business mentioned in the aforesaid proceedings. Condition Nos.1 to 3 make this position explicitly clear. Condition No.5 thereof required the licensee to pay the license fee by 05th of every succeeding month and non payment of the license fee shall entail cancellation of the license apart from the levy of penalty of 24% p.a. on the arrears of the license fee till the date of payment in full. Condition No.10 thereof sets out that the licensee shall not act to the detriment of the interests of the Devasthanams in any manner. Condition No.13 reserves the right of access and entry into the licensed premises and to carry out inspection by the Officers and Staff of the T.T.D. Condition No.15 sets out that the license is liable to be cancelled for violation of any of these terms and conditions of the license. The writ petitioner quietly entered upon the demised premises on 04.08.2008 and he is entitled to remain in possession thereof for a period of three years, which, were to expire on 03.08.2011, subject of course to his payment of the monthly license fee of Rs.4,535/-.

3. The writ petitioner asserts that as part of his professional activity, he has been exposing the administrative lapses and the faults of the policy decisions adopted and implemented by the second respondent –Devasthanam. He seems to have also participated very actively in protesting against the media cubs put in place by the second respondent – Devasthanam. It also appears that the writ petitioner has exposed some of the crucial misdeeds of the then Executive Officer of the second respondent – Devasthanam and brought them to the notice of the State Government, the institution of Lokayukta, the Press Council of India and to the Chairman of the notified authority of the second respondent – Devasthanam. In view of this, the petitioner perceives that the T.T.D. administration has been very hostile towards him.

4. On 23.12.2010 a written complaint was lodged with the Tirumala I Town police station alleging that on 10.07.2010 at about 05.15 a.m. during verification of the V.I.P. Break Darshan tickets at Vaikuntam – I queue complex, one female devotee who gave her name as Ms.J. Sudha Reddy has produced a ticket which was taken in the name of one Sri Narayana, care of Dilli Babu Reddy. In view of the apparent discrepancy, when the devotee has been further probed, she disclosed that she purchased the ticket in question for four persons from an unknown source by paying additional amount than the price of the ticket. This led to further investigation of records at the Joint Executive Officer’s office and it was realized that one Sri Dilli Babu Reddy filed an application for issuance of V.I.P. Break Darshan ticket in the name of one S