Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
G Perumal vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 8 July, 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.9287 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioner had taken shop No.3 in the 3rd respondent-
temple on lease for the period from 01.12.2019 to 30.11.2020.
He was directed to shut down the shop from 21.03.2020 on
account of the Covid-19 pandemic and the regulations issued to
control the said pandemic. The temple premises which had been
closed on 21.03.2020, was reopened on 26.09.2020. However,
the petitioner claims that the shop was reopened only on
26.09.2020 as permission was not granted for reopening of the
shops until then. The petitioner had thereupon given two
representations dated 26.09.2020 and 28.09.2020, for extension
of the licence period. While the petitioner was waiting for reply
to his representations, the 3rd respondent is said to have
initiated auction proceedings to auction the leasehold rights of
the said shop by way of tender dated 09.04.2021. Aggrieved by
the proposed auction, the petitioner has approached this Court.
2. Sri K.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued
Memo No.Rev-01/Endw/276/2020-Endts.II dated 26.12.2020,
directing the Special Commissioner, Endowments Department
to extend the lease/licence period of various licensees/lessees of
Religious and Charitable Institutions for a period equivalent to
the period of stoppage of Darshanams and concerned activities
2 RRR,J
W.P.No.9287 of 2021
of the said institutions, without any additional payment for such
period.
3. It is further submitted that in pursuance of the said
Memo, the Commissioner, Endowment Department had issued
Memo No.B3/12/1/2021 dated 21.01.2021, directing the
Executive Officers of the temples and institutions to submit
proposals to respective authorities for issuance of separate
orders for extending the lease/licence period.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the
representations being given and despite the memoranda issued
by the Government and the Commissioner, the 3rd respondent
Executive Officer without following the said procedure and
without applying the Judgment of this Court dated 15.12.2020
in W.P.No.23613 of 2020, had taken up auction of the leasehold
rights.
5. Sri G.Ramana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for 3rd
respondent-temple would submit that even if the period of
closure is taken as six months, as claimed by the petitioner, the
said period would expire by 30.06.2021 and as such, the
petitioner would have to vacate the premises as of today. He
submits that in those circumstances, the writ petition itself can
be disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to vacate the
premises forthwith and handover the property to the 3rd
respondent-temple.
3 RRR,J
W.P.No.9287 of 2021
6. Sri K.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner
in reply submits that the petitioner was not permitted to carry
on its activities for the past two months on the ground that the
lease of the petitioner had expired.
7. In view of the above submissions, a practical view of
the matter can be taken by disposing of this Writ Petition with a
direction to the 3rd respondent-temple to permit the petitioner to
remain in possession of the leased premises for one more month
and to carry on his activities without any interference from the
3rd respondent-temple for that period.
8. Thereupon, it shall be open to the 3rd respondent-
temple to conduct an auction of the leasehold rights of the said
premises and it would be open to the petitioner also to
participate in the said auction.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
____________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
08th July, 2021
RJS
4 RRR,J
W.P.No.9287 of 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.9287 of 2021
08th July, 2021
RJS
