Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Arup Kumar Goswami, C. Praveen Kumar, JJ.
U.Venkata Subbaiah, S/o U.Hussanaiah – Appellant
Versus
Sri Bramaramba Mallikharjuna Swamy Vari Devastanam, Srisailam Town and Mandal, & Others - Respondents
Writ Appeal No.465 of 2019
Decided On : 27-04-2021
Termination of agreement - Having jurisdiction – Claims of compensation - Whether mobile van of appellant was removed after the date of order passed by 1st respondent - Whether any shops are situated on streets on date of passing order by learned single Judge - Whether mobile van of appellant was removed after date of order passed by 1st respondent appellant as well as 1st respondent were examined - Petitioner/appellant stood as a highest bidder in a public auction held for collecting of deities offered by devotees and sell them at a stipulated place in street - Lease was for a period of two years commencing - While license fee for first year was fixed fee for second year - It is case of petitioner that said amount has to be paid in installments - Petitioner claims to have invested huge amount and started selling clothes offered by devotees to deities using his mobile van and by parking same near exit point of temple - While things stood thus Executive Officer of 1st respondent along with Police and Revenue staff came to said place and demanded removal of mobile van from said place - Assailing action of Executive Officer petitioner appellant preferred before this court which was disposed of directing petitioner to submit his explanation to notice issued and thereafter Executive Officer was directed to pass orders on merits in accordance with law - Entire exercise was directed to be completed within a period of two weeks from date of order –
Finding of the Court:
Allegations made in writ affidavit and arguments advanced in appeal that writ appellant has been singled out while allowing others to continue their business in streets is incorrect - In fact a reading of counter-affidavit and report show removal of shops itself due to serial bomb blast incidents and loss of human lives in Colombo security threats from religious fundamentalist and terrorist organization and their outfits and ensuing festivals in months of February and March of said year - Since all shop owners were directed to be vacated in interest of security of pilgrims and which has been done request of appellant herein that termination of agreement with any valid reason cannot be accepted - Even otherwise Clauses 17 to 19 of agreement confer power on 1st respondent to terminate agreement - Under clause-17 Executive Officer can cancel license on any ground while Clause-18 deals with power to alter and add conditions Clause-19 postulate that if appellant violates any of terms of agreement or withdraws his license pending lease period amount paid by him till such period will be forfeited – Hence reasons given for termination of agreement and seeking vacation of premises cannot be said to be arbitrary in nature more so when writ petitioner/appellant was given a notice and only after considering explanation offered order impugned in Writ Petition came to be passed –
Result: Writ Appeal is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
C. Praveen Kumar, J
1. Aggrieved by the order, dated 30-10-2019, passed in W.P.No.9144 of 2019, wherein the request of the writ petitioner/appellant herein, to declare the order passed by the Exep cutive Officer of the 1st respondent -Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Vari Devastanam in Rc.No.C2/7082/2016, dated 06.07.2019, as illegal and incorrect, was rejected, the present Writ Appeal is filed.
2. The petitioner/appellant stood as a highest bidder in a public auction held on 23.11.2017, for collecting the alankara vastrams (clothes) of the deities, namely, Mallikarjunaswamy and Bhramaramba, offered by the devotees and sell them at a stipulated place in the mada street. The lease was for a period of two years commencing from 01.12.2017. While the licence fee for the first year was fixed at Rs.81,00,000/-, the fee for the second year was at Rs.89,10,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that the said amount has to be paid in installments. The petitioner claims to have invested huge amount and started selling the clothes offered by the devotees to the deities, using his mobile van and by parking the same near the exit point of the temple (place identified by the Department). While things stood thus, the Executive Officer of the 1st respondent Devasthanam, along with Police and Revenue staff, came to the said place and demanded removal of the mobile van from the said place. Assailing the action of the Executive Officer, the petitioner/appellant preferred W.P.No.7776 of 2019 before this court, which was disposed of on 24.06.2019, directing the petitioner to submit his explanation to the notice issued and thereafter the Executive Officer was directed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law. The entire exercise was directed to be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of the order.
3. Challenging the order passed by the Executive Officer of the 1st respondent Devasthanam thereto, on the ground that no reasonable explanation was given as to why the petitioner should not do his business from the place identified by the authorities, W.P. No.9144 of 2019 came to be filed. After hearing both sides and taking into consideration the issues involved, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition. Assailing the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed.
4. Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the appellant, mainly submits that the reason given by the authorities, namely, a bomb blast in Colombo and the likely eventualities, was based on assumptions, without any factual foundation. He further pleads that the appellant is having sarees worth lakhs of rupees and if he is not allowed to sell the same from the place identified by the authorities, he would be put to irreparable loss. In the alternative he pleads that the appellant may be permitted to sell the sarees at least till the stock lasts.
5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Endowments and the learned Standing Counsel for the Temple opposed the same contending that all the shops in the madastreet have been vacated and mobile van of the appellant cannot be an exception to the same. The reasons for eviction from the street is evident in the impugned proceedings itself and as such this court cannot sit in appeal over the reasons given therein, more particularly, the security aspect.
6. Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the appellant, in reply, would contend that as per the instructions received by him, some of the shops are allowed to run in the said street and the appellant alone was forced to remove his van.
7. Having regard to the issue raised, this court by its order dated 17.02.2020 called for a report from District Judge, Kurnool. The operative portion of the order is as under :-
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
