Point of Law: Tender auction - Extension of lease period - Corona pandemic - Absence of any determination of loss sustained, a blanket relief extending the lease period to petitioners is unjust and unreasonable keeping in view functioning of temple.

ORDER :

1. Since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common order.

2. The Writ Petitioners are successful tenderers for the year 2019-2021 ending by 31.3.2021 for conducting the business in the shops allotted for selling coconuts, bangles, canteen etc., in the respondent temple area for a lease amount payable as per tender auction conditions.

3. For the sake of convenience and since the sum and substance of all the Writ Petitions is one and the same, I refer to the facts as pleaded in W.P.No.7110 of 2021, which are as follows:

4. The case of the petitioner is that the third respondent – Sri Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu, Karimnagar District had issued tender notification in R.C.No.L/139/2018 inviting tenders from interested bidders for running the shop to sell the coconuts to the devotees for the period from 01.4.2019 to 31.3.2021 i.e. for a period of two years. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner participated in the tender and became highest bidder and has been running the coconut shop in the premises of the third respondent temple by paying requisite amount. However, due to Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner had to close the shop from March 2020 till October 2020 as such he suffered loss of business for more than seven months. Due to partial lifting of lockdown, the petitioner could do some business but due to prevailing situation in the State, the number of devotees visiting the temple has been drastically reduced and as such he is not in a position to do regular business as was being done prior to the eruption of the pandemic. The petitioner along with other vendors requested the Executive Officer of the third respondent for extension of the lease period by three more years in view of the loss sustained by them. Thereupon, the Executive Officer addressed letter dated 02.02.2021 to the Commissioner of Endowments, requesting him to consider his proposals sent vide proceedings dated 18.02.2020 wherein he positively recommended for extension of lease period. However, till date, the Commissioner of Endowments has not responded to the said proposals / recommendations made by the Executive Officer of the temple.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that to their utter shock and surprise, the respondents have issued the impugned tender notice dated 12.3.2021 intimating to the public that e-tender auction would be held on 26.3.2021 at 12.00 PM for running the shops mentioned therein including the shop for selling coconut for a period of two years from 01.4.2021 to 31.3.2023. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

6. While admitting the Writ Petition, this Court by order dated 25.3.2021 passed order in I.A.No.1 of 2021 suspending the operation of the impugned tender notification subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the arrears payable to the temple within a period of one month and on such payment, the petitioner shall be permitted to conduct his existing business for a period of three months i.e. from 01.4.2021 to 30.6.2021.

7. While so, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 stating that only 25% of arrears have been deposited in terms of the interim order and requested the Court to extend the time to deposit the remaining 25% arrears up to 31.12.2021 and also to extend the lease period up to 31.3.2023 by contending that due to the Corona pandemic the temple is closed for the period from 21.4.2021 to 30.4.2021 and also due to the drastically reduction in the number of devotees visiting the temple and further prayed not to insist any more amounts.

8. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Karimnagar District and Executive Officer (FAC) of the Temple filed counter admitting the factum of imposing lockdown throughout the country. It is also admitted in the counter that the petitioner was unable to carry out the business during the lockdown period i.e. for a period of 78 days for which