A public auction's highest bid cannot be disregarded on arbitrary bases without substantial evidence of misconduct in the auction process.

1. The petitioner in this Writ Petition seeks a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order of the Executive Officer of Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Varu Devasthanam, Srisailam (the 3rd respondent herein) issued in his Re. No. C2/630/92 dated 27-3-1992 signed on 28-3-1992, informing him that the Commissioner, Endowments De­partment (the 2nd respondent herein) has not approved the lease hold rights for collection of broken coconuts in both the temples for the period from 1-4-1992 to 31-3-1993 granted in favour of the petitioner with directions to conduct fresh public auction, as arbitrary, illegal and unjust etc.

2. The petitioner states that the Devas­thanam conducted public auction on 18-2­ - 1992 to lease out the right of collecting the broken coconuts for the period from 1-4-1992 to 31-3-1993 after sufficient advance publica­tion and that the petitioner made the initial deposit of Rs. 10,000/- and participated in the said auction. He states that his bid for Rs. 2,50,000/- was the highest bid and it was knocked down in his favour and that he immediately paid Rs. 30,000/- more towards part of 1/3rd of the highest bid amount and the remaining sum of Rs. 13,330/- of the 1/3rd of the bid amount on 9-3-1992. The petitioner states that subsequently he was called for by the 3rd respondent on 28-3-1992 evening and was served with the orders of the 3rd respondent in his Rc. No.C2/630/92 dated 27-3-1992. In the said order, which is impugned in this Writ Petition, it is stated that on a representation made by one E. Ramachandra Reddy of Metnala village, the Commissioner did not accord "approval for the licence granted to collect the broken coconuts in the two temples on 18-3-1992 in public auction for the period from 1-4-1992 to 31-3-1993 and directed fresh public auction again" and that the upset bid at the said auction would start from Rs. 2,79,000/-.

3. In the impugned order, reference was made of the Commissioner's D.Ds. No. C.2/630/92 dated 21-3-1992.

4. Notice before admission was directed in this Writ Petition on 31-3-1992 and the learned Government Pleader for Endow­ments was directed to produce the relevant records of the 2nd respondent. After the records of the 2nd respondent were produced on 1-4-1992 this Court observed as follows:­

5. "The learned Government Pleader produc­ed the record of the Commissioner, Endow­ments Department, the 2nd respondent here­in. The record discloses that the 3rd respon­dent in his Re. No. C2/630/92 dated 7-3-1992 reported to the 2nd respondent i.e., the Commissioner,. Endowments Department. In the said report, he stated that there was good competition between the participants and that the bid amounts were higher than the amounts of the previous year. In respect of the auction relating to broken coconuts, it was stated that for the previous year the amount realised was Rs. 2,42,000/- and that at the present auction the highest bid was for Rs. 2,50,000/-. He also stated in the report that in respect of the said auction the highest bid was that of the petitioner for Rupees 2,50,000/- and that as he felt that the amount was reasonable, the highest bid was accepted. He therefore recommended for the accep­tance of the same by the Commissioner. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent in his Rc. No. C2/630/92 dated 10-3-1992 sent another report stating that he received a petition from one E. Ramachandra Reddy of Metnala village in Nandyala Mandal, Kurnool district on 7-3-1