Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
G V V S Narayana Murthy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 October, 2021
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra, C.Praveen Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI
WRIT APPEAL Nos.509 and 511 of 2021
(Hybrid Hearing through Video-Conferencing)
WRIT APPEAL No.509 of 2021
G.V.V.S. Narayanamurthy, S/o. late Appa Rao,
Aged 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Annavaram,
East Godavari ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal
Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, and
others ... Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. D.V. Sasidhar
Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : G.P. for Endowments
Counsel for respondent No.3 : Mr. K. Madhava Reddy
WRIT APPEAL No.511 of 2021
K. Satish, S/o. Satti Babu, aged 27 years,
Occ: Business, R/o. Annavaram, East Godavari ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal
Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, and
others ... Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. D.V. Sasidhar
Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : G.P. for Endowments
Counsel for respondent No.3 : Mr. K. Madhava Reddy
ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT
Dt: 27.10.2021
(Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
These writ appeals, under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, are
presented by the petitioners in W.P.Nos.3099 and 3171 of 2021, respectively,
2 HCJ & AVSS, J
W.A.Nos.509 & 511 of 2021
against the common order dated 13.07.2021 passed therein by the learned
single Judge. As such, they are heard together and disposed of by this
common judgment.
2. Heard Mr. D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel for the writ petitioners
(appellants) and Mr. K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for
respondent No.3-Devasthanam.
3. Petitioner in W.P.No.3171 of 2021 was allowed to run the main
canteen in respondent No.3-Devasthanam from 18.10.2018 to 17.10.2020.
Similarly, petitioner in W.P.No.3099 of 2021 was allowed to run sub-canteen
from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2021. For the sake of convenience, they will be
referred to as the writ petitioners.
4. Since the writ petitioners were unable to operate the canteens for a
substantial period during the subsistence of the licence due to high prevalence
of COVID-19 pandemic in the subject area, they preferred the writ petitions for
a direction to the respondents to refund the licence fee equivalent to the period
which could not be utilized due to COVID-19 pandemic. Learned single Judge
has refused to interfere in the matter by referring to Section 56 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872, which stipulates that contracts which are impossible for
performance become void and cannot be enforced and no benefit can be
taken by either side from such contracts.
5. Mr. D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, would submit
that when performance of the contract was not possible due to a situation
which was beyond the control of either party, the period of contract can very
well be extended when the situation is normalised and, instead of doing so,
respondent No.3-Devasthanam has now proceeded to engage a new
contractor to run the canteens. He would, particularly, refer to Memo No.Rev-
01/Endw/276/2020-Endts.II dated 26.12.2020 issued by the Secretary to
3 HCJ & AVSS, J
W.A.Nos.509 & 511 of 2021
Government (FAC), Revenue (Endts.II) Department, informing the authorities
to extend the licence/lease period of various licences/leases belonging to
Religious and Charitable Institutions equivalently for the period of stoppage of
darshanams and concerned activities of temples/institutions in view of high
prevalence of COVID-19 on the same licence fees without any additional
payment for such period. He would submit that petitioners' case should have
been considered by the authorities keeping in view the aforesaid Memo.
6. On the other hand, Mr. K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel
for respondent No.3/Devasthanam, submits that the writ petitioners are not
entitled to take benefit of the Memo dated 26.12.2020.
7. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed
by the learned single Judge, as this Court, in exercise of powers under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, cannot extend any licence or lease without
consent of the party. If the writ petitioners desire to invoke the provisions
contained in Memo No.Rev-01/Endw/276/2020-Endts.II dated 26.12.2020,
they would be at liberty to move appropriate application before the competent
authority, who shall take decision in accordance with law based on the
attending circumstances, within a period of two weeks from the date of
submission of application by the writ petitioners.
8. Subject to the above observations and directions, the writ appeals
stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications,
if any, shall stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ A.V. SESHA SAI, J
MRR
