I N THE HI GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA DATE: 18.03.2026 BETWEEN :

Golla Padmavathi & 2 others … Petitioners And The State of Telangana, Endowments Department, Hyderabad & 4 others …. Respondents

O R D E R

Heard Sri P.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Ch.Satish Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.5.

2. The petitioners approached this Court seeking the prayer as under:

“…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not intimating or serving a notice upon the petitioners regarding the Memo No.14199/Endts.II/A2/2020 dated 17.12.2021 for extension of granting extension of the lease/license period for total period of 292 days as illegal, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondent No.5 to permit the petitioners to continue to carry their business for a further period of 292 days from the date of expiry of the existing lease agreement and pass such other order…”

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners are small shopkeepers carrying on business near the Sri Kanakadurga Ammavari Temple, selling pooja materials and consumables, and collecting coconut shells as part of their trade. Petitioner No.1 was the successful bidder in the annual tender for the year 2019–2020, with the lease valid from 22.09.2019 to 21.09.2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and consequent temple closures, business operations were suspended. Subsequently, Respondent No.1 issued a Memo dated 17.12.2021 granting a 292-day extension of the lease period. However, the petitioners were not informed of this extension and remained unaware of their legal entitlement. Later, the petitioners had discovered the same through third parties, by which time the extended period had largely lapsed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, seeking an extension of 292 days beyond the current lease ending on 31.03.2026.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD.

DI SCUSSI ON AND CONCLUSI ON :

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners mainly puts forth the following submissions:

(i) The petitioners were not aware of the issuance of Memo No.14199/Endts.II/A2/2020 dated 17.12.2021 which provided for extension of the lease/license period granted on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.

(ii) The benefits of the said Memo were extended to the similarly situated persons like the petitioners herein, but however in view of the fact that the petitioners did not have any communication about the said Memo dated 17.12.2021, the petitioners could not avail the opportunity and benefits of the said Memo.

(iii) The petitioners submitted a detailed representation dated 04.03.2026 to the 2^nd respondent herein for extension of the benefit of the Memo No.14199/Endowments.II/A2/2020 dated 17.12.2021 which provides for extension of the lease/license period for a total period of 292 days. But however, no orders are passed on the said memo as on date.

(iv) Instead the respondent authority issued auction notice vide Rc.No.26/SKD/2026 dated 23.03.2026 with a clear stipulation at clause (7) that all the individuals with pending Court cases cannot be permitted to participate in the subject auction scheduled to be held on 23.03.2026 at 10:00 AM. The said auction notice dated 23.03.2026 is illegal and arbitrary.

Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contend that the petitioners are entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioners in the present writ petition.

6. The learned Government Pleader fairly submits that appropriate orders may be passed.

7. A bare perusal of the record indicates the fact that it is the specific p