Item No.9
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
W.A.No.316 OF 2021
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)
1. The appellants/writ petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated
02.07.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14647 of
2021, praying inter alia for issuing directions to the respondent
No.4/temple to extend their contracts that had commenced on 01.04.2020 and were to expire on 31.03.2021, i.e., for a period of one year, on the ground that they had to shut down their shops due to the COVID-19 pandemic from March, 2020 to October, 2020 and had suffered huge loses. Even after partial lifting of the lockdown, the devotees visiting the temple had drastically reduced and therefore, the appellants/writ petitioners could not conduct regular business. When the appellants/writ petitioners approached the respondent No.4/temple for extension of the lease period by explaining the above circumstances, the same was extended only for 90 days from 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021. Aggrieved by issuance of tender notice dated 25.06.2021 by the respondents inviting applications for running the shops, including those licenced to the writ petitioners for selling coconuts to devotees, they approached the court for relief by filing the captioned writ petition.
2. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments opposed the writ petition by explaining that any extension of the lease period for a W.A.No.316 of 2021 Page 1 of 4 2 further period of one year would run contrary to Rule 15 of the Immoveable Properties and Other Rights (Other than Agricultural Lands), Leases and Licences Rules, 2003 that stipulates that "any lease or licence granted, continued or allowed to be continued otherwise in accordance with rules shall be null and void". It was submitted that the temple had suffered huge losses due to reduction of revenue and contributions/donations from the devotees and was finding it difficult to pay the salaries of the staff and that the financial stability of the entire institution was dependent on the revenue generated by the temple.
3. After considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge observed that though the lease of the writ petitioners had expired by the end of March, 2021, the respondent No.4/temple had granted them an extension for 90 days, till 30.06.2021. Once the appellants/writ petitioners had participated in the auction, they should have been ready to take both, the good and the bad. Having been granted a licence to run the shops for a fixed period and keeping in mind the fact that even the temple had to pay salaries to the staff and bear other overheads and maintenance charges which was dependent on the revenue generated from the lease amounts, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere in the tender notification or stop the process and resultantly, the writ petition was dismissed.
W.A.No.316 of 2021 Page 2 of 4 3
4. Learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that similar concessions have been given by the TSRTC and KSRTC; that some authorities had even extended the period of licence without even conducting any auction and that the ground for seeking extension of the licence was genuine as the business of the appellants was seriously hit by the COVID-19 infection.
5. It is not in dispute that the contract in respect of the shops in question was awarded in favour of the appellants/writ petitioners only for a period of one year. Despite that, vide letter dated 26.04.2021, the licence of both the appellants was extended by the respondent No.4/temple for a period of 90 days. After exhausting the extended period, the appellants/writ petitioners approached the court at the eleventh hour seeking interdiction in respect of the tender notification dated 25.06.2021. We are informed that though bids were invited by the respondent No.4/temple for the shops in question, the same did not result in any allotment and a fresh tender notification had to be issued on 03.07.2021.
6. Mr. Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.4/temple, who appears on advance notice states that in response to the second tender notification dated 03.07.2021, two bids have been accepted in respect of subject shops, though at a lesser price.
7. We are of the opinion that the appellants/writ petitioners could also have participated in the fresh tender, if they had so desired. W.A.No.316 of 2021 Page 3 of 4 4 Having failed to do so, it is too late in the day for them to approach the court challenging the impugned order. Even otherwise, the parties are governed by the terms of the contract executed by them. The appellants cannot insist that the respondent No.4/temple must extend them similar concessions as granted by other authorities. It is noteworthy that the respondents have on their own given a concession to the appellants/writ petitioners and had permitted them to continue occupying the subject shops for a period of 90 days beyond the contract period of one year.
8. The impugned order does not warrant any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine as meritless along with the pending applications, if any.
_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ ______________________ B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 30.07.2021 Lrkm/vs W.A.No.316 of 2021 Page 4 of 4