Point of law: order of cancellation of the Commissioner is on the ground that a tender-cum-public auction should have been conducted according to the rules, whereas only a public auction was conducted and the said auction need to be set aside on that ground. The reasons given by the Commissioner for such cancellation do not appear to be reasonable grounds, which are sufficient for such a cancellation of the auction.

ORDER :

1. At the outset, this Court is compelled to mention the figure of Rs. 10,70,05,600/-. This was the loss caused to Sri. Bhramarambika Mallikarjuna Swamy Varla Devasthanams, Srisailam, on account of the pendency of the present batch of cases. It is obvious that any continuation of this litigation would result in further loss pegged at Rs. 41,15,600/- per month. In the circumstances, with a view to protect the interest of the temple and the petitioners before this Court, all the writ petitions are being taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2. Sri. Bhramarambika Mallikarjuna Swamy Varla Devasthanams, Srisailam is a well known and famous shrine dedicated to Lord Shiva and Devi Bhramarambika. A master plan was formulated with a view to improve the area around the Temple. This master plan required the authorities to remove a large number of structures around the temple and it’s surroundings. For this purpose, the Temple authorities to obviate litigation, had negotiated with the persons in possession of these structures and obtained their consent for vacating these structures on the understanding that they would be rehabilitated. In this process the persons in possession of the shops and establishments of certain areas, had handed over the possession of their shops and establishments to the temple authorities and had been accommodated in a complex known as “Siddaramappa Shopping Complex.”

3. The temple authorities, in a similar manner, had taken up the removal of various shops and establishments in the Rathasala Post Office Road and the Patalaganga Road. It was found that there were 156 shops/plots/canteens and 14 godowns aggregating to 170 structures, which were required to be removed. Accordingly the temple authorities had negotiated with the persons in possession of these structures, who voluntarily handed over the said structures to the temple authorities on the understanding that they would be rehabilitated by allotment of shops on lease basis in the complex that was to be constructed in the name of “Lalithambika Shopping Complex.” The Executive Officer of the temple had addressed a communication bearing Rc. No. C2/4820/2018, dated 26.11.2018 to the Commissioner, Endowments Department, setting out the above facts and requesting permission for allotment of 170 shops, on lease basis, in favour of the persons, who have given up the aforesaid 170 structures for a period of 11 years with increase in rents every three years. The Commissioner, Endowments, by proceedings in D. Dis. No. D2/14025(34)/42/2018, dated 07.02.2019 had accorded permission to lease out 170 shops to the existing tenants in the newly constructed Lalithambika Shopping Complex subject to the following guidelines:

(a) Selection of shops by lottery for 170 shops to the 170 sitting tenants who lost their shops at Radhasala Post Office Road and Pathalaganga Road for the purpose of allotment of shop Nos.

(b) Price is fixed as Rs. 20/- per Shift.

(c) Lease period is fixed as 3 years.

(d) Remaining 23 shops are leased out in public auction duly following the rules in vogue.

(e) Other conditions stipulated by the EO in earlier lease orders shall also be incorporated in the present lease orders.

4. It appears that the executive officer had sent a communication dated 09.02.2019 seeking permission to auction the shops as the rent of Rs. 20/- per sq. feet fixed by the Commissioner was on the lower side. Be that as it may, the general public are said to have been informed that there would be a dip system undertaken, on 13.02.2019, for allotment of the shops, which would be handed over on 15.02.2019.

5. At that stage, some persons interested in participating in a public auction, of the lease hold rights of these shops, had filed W.P. No. 1727 of 2019 for a direction that the shops cannot be allotted on private negotiation basis and a public auction should be conducted for such shops. This Court by an order dated 15.02.2019 had directed that the respondents should