The vs Maharaja
2021 Latest Caselaw 4408 AP

       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

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.

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

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.

(1989) 2 Supreme Court Cases 505

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

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

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITION No.24736 of 2021

01-11-2021

SDP