Prahalada Enterprises vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3984 AP
Judgement Date : 7 October, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Prahalada Enterprises vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 7 October, 2021
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                       &
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA


                    WRIT APPEAL No.625 of 2021

                      (Through video conferencing)

Prahalada Enterprises, Represented by
It's Proprietress, Smt. Yarrakula Punnamma,
W/o Pothuraju, aged about 57 years,
Its Registered office at : Door No.3-297,
Shivalayam Street, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.
                                                            ... Appellant

                                 Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by its Principal Secretary
Endowments Department, Secretariat
Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Andhra Pradesh and others.
                                                             ... Respondents

Counsel for the appellant          :   Mr. P. Veera Reddy, senior counsel
                                       & Mr. Gorle Gopalakrishna

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 :        Ms. Rajani, GP

Counsel for respondent No.5        :       Mr. K. Madhava Reddy.


                            JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Dt:07.10.2021 (per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ) Heard Mr. P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Gorle Gopalakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Rajani, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.5.

2. This writ appeal is preferred against an order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.19877 of 2021.

                                        2                           HCJ & NJS,J
                                                             W.A.No.625 of 2021




3. The appellant/writ petitioner being a successful bidder was granted license for selling Panakam, which is offered to the deities of the 5th respondent-temple, and other items of worship etc., for a period of one year i.e., 2021-22, on the top of the hill where the 5th respondent temple is situated. The petitioner has to pay an amount of Rs.1,35,00,000/- towards license fee.

4. As per clause 9 of the conditions of auction notification, the appellant is required to pay the entire amount after the auction. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- as on the date of filing of the writ petition, in which notice issued by the 5th respondent was put to challenge. By the aforesaid notice dated 27.08.2021, the appellant was required to pay the remaining amount within 5 days after receipt of the notice, indicating that in case of default, fresh notification will be issued.

5. Taking note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, at para 11 of the order under challenge, the learned single Judge directed as follows:

"Accordingly, it will be open to the petitioner to place the proposal of the petitioner for payment of Rs.15,00,000/- by 20.09.2021 and for payment of Rs.15,00,000/- by 30.09.2021 and payment of remaining license fee by the end of October, 2021 before the 5th respondent by tomorrow.
Thereupon, the 5th respondent is to take a decision on the matter keeping in view of the 3 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.625 of 2021 possible hardship to the devotees if the said license is cancelled."

6. When this appeal was moved on 04.10.2021, while directing the Registry to list this matter today, we had passed an interim order directing that auction, which was scheduled to be held at 3.30 p.m., on 4.10.2021, shall not be conducted pursuant to E-Tender, Sealed Tender-cum-Public Auction Notice dated 18.09.2021.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

8. Perusal of the materials on record indicates that in terms of the directions of the learned single Judge at para 11 of the order dated 14.09.2021 in W.P.No.19877 of 2021, the appellant had submitted a representation on 14.09.2021 itself. It transpires that the aforesaid representation was rejected by the 5th respondent on 17.09.2021 and assailing the same, the appellant filed a writ petition, which was registered as W.P.No.21649 of 2021. Having instituted a fresh writ petition challenging the implementation of the order of the learned single Judge, this writ appeal came to be filed on 29.09.2021.

9. In the above background, we find no good reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge and accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Interim order dated 04.10.2021 passed by this Court shall stand vacated. The respondents may take further steps pursuant to E-Tender, Sealed Tender-cum-Public Auction Notice dated 18.09.2021. All the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                           NINALA JAYASURYA, J

                                                                         Nn