HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.24736 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioner had been granted the contract for collection of hair offered by the devotees of the 3rd respondent temple for the period from 01.12.2019 to 31.03.2021 having offered a bid of Rs.7,75,03,665/-. The petitioner was able to collect human hair up to middle of February, 2020, after which the 3rd respondent temple was shut down due to the Covid-19 Pandemic. The fact that emerges from the documents placed before this Court is that the offering of hair by devotees was restarted only on 01.07.2020.
2. The petitioner contend that the despite reopening of the facility of offering hair, there was very low attendance of devotees up to December, 2020. In the circumstances, the petitioner had approached the 3rd respondent temple with a request to extend the lease period. However, the request was not for extending the lease simplicitor. The proposal by the petitioner was that the 3rd respondent temple could auction the hair collected from 17.03.2020 till 31.12.2020 and in lieu of that period the lease given to the petitioner may be extended by 10 months with effect from 01.04.2021. This request of the petitioner was placed before the board of trustees of the 3rd respondent temple, which had accepted the said request and forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent, Commissioner of Endowments Department for approval. It appears that the 2nd 2 respondent-Commissioner had forwarded this request to the Government by communication in letter No.B2/COE- 12/10/2020-B SEC/ Endowments, dated 01.06.2021. Thereafter, the 1st respondent-Government had forwarded a communication dated 05.10.2021 vide Memo No.Rev- 01/Endw/219/2021-Endts.II (i) drawing the attention of the 2nd respondent to an earlier memo of the Government bearing No.Rev-01/Endw/276/2020, dated 26.12.2020, wherein the Government had directed the Endowments Authorities to extend leases of all lessees who were unable to benefit from the leases for the period, for the shutdown of the temples. On this basis, the Commissioner, Endowments Department had issued proceedings in Rc.B2/COE-12/10/2021, dated 07.10.2021 directing the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent temple to act in accordance with memo dated 26.12.2020.
3. On the basis of the above instructions, the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent-temple had issued proceedings in Rc.No.C1/222/2019, dated 19.10.2021 granting an extension from 01.04.2021 to 12.07.2021.
4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said proceedings has approached this Court assailing the said proceedings of the 2nd respondent-Commissioner in memo dated 07.10.2021 as well as the consequential proceedings of the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent dated 19.10.2021. 3
5. The contention of Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent- Commissioner had acted without application of mind and had also abdicated his obligation under the Act and Rules made there under. He submits that the request made by the petitioner was not for a simple extension of lease, but was for an exchange of the period of lease between 17.03.2020 to 31.12.2020 for a period, which would commence from 01.04.2021 for a period of 10 months. He submits that this proposal which was accepted by the board of trustees of the 3rd respondent temple was not considered in the proper perspective by the Commissioner-2nd respondent, who without going through the contents of the recommendation made by the trust board had mechanically forwarded the request to the Government and thereafter acted on the instructions of the Government to extend leases and licenses only for the period of closure which was approximately 103 days. He contends that such exercise is clearly in violation of Rule 12 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Immovable Properties and other Right (Other Than Agricultural) Leases and Licenses Rules, 2003 (for short 'Rules, 2003) which stipulates that the Commissioner would be the competent authority for approval of leases or licenses other than by way of public auction. He submits that in view of the said provision of law, the Commissioner who is the competent authority could not have forwarded the recommendation of the 3rd respondent 4 temple to the Government. He further contends that the Commissioner, who is the competent authority has to take an independent decision and any decision, which is based on the recommendation made by any other body is clearly illegal and has to be set aside and relies upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh and others1.
6. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent temple would submit that the request made by the petitioner and the recommendation made by the 3rd respondent are effectively for extension of the leases and the memos issued by the Government and more specifically the memo dated 20.12.2020 would be applicable to the present case. He submits that the provision of Rule 12 of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Immovable Properties and other Right (Other Than Agricultural) Leases and Licenses Rules, 2003 would apply in cases where normal leases or licenses have been granted and the said rule cannot be applied to the present extraordinary situation. He submits that the steps taken by the Commissioner by obtaining approval from the Government and consequent orders of the Commissioner and the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent cannot be faulted on the ground that they had not taken into account the factors raised by the petitioner. 1 (1989) 2 Supreme Court Cases 505 5
7. A perusal of the documents placed before this Court, the pleadings in the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Standing Counsel and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments, would show that the present case is not a case of a simple extension of lease. In the case of an extension of lease, the lessee would be given the benefit of the original period of lease as well as the period for which the lease stands extended. In the present case, the petitioner is foregoing the benefit of the license for the period from 17.03.2020 to 31.12.2020 and he is seeking an extension in lieu of the period for which he is foregoing the benefit of the license. In such a situation, the memos issued by the Government would not be applicable. A further factor which needs to be taken into account is that the board of trustees of the 3rd respondent temple has accepted the proposal of the petitioner and forwarded the same for approval as required under the Rules. In such a situation, Rule 12 of the Rules, 2003 would be applicable.
8. Once Rule 12 of the Rules, 2003 is applicable to the present case, it would be the Commissioner who has take a decision as to whether recommendation of the 3rd respondent temple should be accepted or not. The facts, as placed before this Court, would indicate that the Commissioner has not acted according to the Rules, which requires a decision of the Commissioner and not the Government. Further, both the Commissioner and the Government appear to have taken a view 6 that the application of the petitioner is for a simple extension of lease when it is otherwise.
9. For all these reasons, it would be appropriate to allow this writ petition by setting aside the proceedings of the Commissioner dated 07.10.2021 and the consequential proceedings of the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent dated 19.10.2021, leaving it open to the Commissioner to reconsider the recommendation made by the board of trustee of the 3rd respondent and pass orders on the said recommendation within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the order. It is further clarified that till such a decision is taken the petitioner shall be permitted to continue in the license. However, the hair collected for this period, shall be kept aside and shall be subject to the decision of the Commissioner of Endowments. It is further clarified that the Commissioner shall take a decision without being influenced in any manner by any of the memos issued by the Government in relation to the extension of leases on account of the Covid-19 Pandemic.
10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
01.11.2021 SDP 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.24736 of 2021 01-11-2021 SDP