Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P T Sundharajan vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 September, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF Bench
APHC010234102024 Sr.No:-40
ANDHRA PRADESH
[3483]
AT AMARAVATI
Writ Appeal Nos: 615 & 688
of 2024
W.A. No.615 of 2024
Boddapati Vinod Kumar and Others ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s)
**********
Government Pleader for Endowments, Counsel for respondent No.1.
Mr. S. Satyanarayana Prasad, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. S. N. Chidambara
Sastry, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
W.A. No.688 of 2024
P T Sundharajan ...Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s)
**********
Mr. D. V. Nagarjuna Babu, Senior Counsel, representing Mr. Kiran
Tirumalasetti, Counsel for appellant.
Government Pleader for Endowments, Counsel for respondent No.1.
Mr. S. Satyanarayana Prasad, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. S. N. Chidambara
Sastry, Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 5.
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
DATE : 9th September 2024
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. Nos: 615 & 688 of 2024
PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ (Oral) :
The present Writ Appeals have been preferred against a common
judgment and order, passed in W.P. Nos.2679 of 2023, 35461 & 36860 of
2022, dated 18.12.2023. Writ Appeal No.615 of 2024 arises out of W.P.
No.36860 of 2022 and Writ Appeal No.688 of 2024 arises out of W.P.
No.35461 of 2022 .
Briefly stated, the material facts are as under:
2. The case set out by the petitioners before the writ Court is that being
ardent devotees of Lord Sri Venkateswara Swamy of Tirumala, they wish to
participate in certain Sevas for which prior booking is envisaged. It is stated
that the petitioners booked Sevas on payment of certain amounts with the
Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (for short, "TTD") in the year 2006, not only for
the petitioners but also for their family members. Their turn, on account of the
long waiting period, was to come in the year 2021. However, on account of the
COVID-19 restrictions, the Darshans were cancelled and the petitioners were
permitted to avail the Break Darshan or claim refund of the amount which has
been paid by them.
The petitions filed by the appellants herein came to be disposed of by
virtue of the judgment and order impugned, dated 18.12.2023, following the
decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1078 of 2022
& connected matters, dated 19.10.2023. The appellants in those appeals had
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. Nos: 615 & 688 of 2024
a similar grievance as in the appellants in the present case. The Division
Bench in the aforementioned appeals invoked the principle of law as
contained in Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and held that the
arrangement between the appellants therein and the TTD was in the nature of
a Contract, which became impossible to perform on account of COVID-19
conditions and therefore, its action in not honouring the contract was justified
on account of frustration of the contract. The Division Bench relied on the
judgment of the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in case of Satyabrata
Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co1, which held as under:
"It is well settled and not disputed before us that if and when there
is frustration the dissolution of the contract occurs automatically. It
does not depend, as does rescission of a contract on the ground of
repudiation or breach, or on the choice or election of either party. It
depends on the effect of what has actually happened on the possibility
of performing the contract. What happens generally in such cases and
has happened here is that one party claims that the contract has been
frustrated while the other party denies it. The issue has got to be
decided by the court "ex post facto, on the actual circumstances of the
case."
3. Finally, the Division Bench gave liberty to the appellants therein in the
said proceedings to either claim a refund of money or to avail Break Darshan,
which was the option given by the TTD.
It appears from the record that since there was already a judgment
rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on the issue, counsel for the
AIR 1954 SC 44 = 1954 SCR 310
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. Nos: 615 & 688 of 2024
parties agreed and submitted before the learned single Judge that the issues
which were raised in the writ petitions were squarely covered by the judgment
and order, dated 19.10.2023, and in that context and based upon that
statement, the learned single Judge proceeded to dispose of the writ petitions
in the following manner:
"2. However, both the counsels submit that the issue involved herein is
similar and identical to the issue involved in W.A.Nos.1078 of 2022, 299,
300 and 301 of 2023 and that the subject is squarely covered by the
Common Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.1078
of 2022, 299, 300 and 301 of 2023 dated 19.10.2023, wherein the Division
Bench of this Court made an observation that the petitioners are at liberty
either to claim refund of the money paid by them to the T.T.D. or to avail
the other option of Break Darshan.
3. In view of the same, these Writ Petitions are also disposed of in
terms of the same. There shall be no order as to costs."
4. It appears that the counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners did not at
all raise any issues with a view to support and buttress their assertions as had
been made in the writ petition and had consented to the disposal of the writ
petition in the light of the judgment and order rendered by the Division Bench.
5. The main argument of learned counsel for the appellants before us was
that the TTD should have adopted a more rational method and explored
possibilities of adjusting the appellants for offering Sevas for which bookings
had been done by them years ago by curtailing and downsizing the VIP
tickets, which are offered to a privileged few.
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. Nos: 615 & 688 of 2024
6. Learned counsel for TTD would submit that the number of devotees
who can be permitted to offer Sevas of the kind for which the appellants had
made the bookings is very limited and that only a specific number of people
are permitted to offer the said Sevas for which the bookings have already
been made for the next 30-40 years and therefore, adjusting the appellants to
offer those Sevas would be impossible, as it would affect the rights of those,
who had already made the bookings and have been waiting in the queue for
years together.
7. In our view, the appellants also do not deny the fact that the TTD did not
permit the appellants to offer the Sevas for which bookings had been done, on
account of COVID-19 conditions. On the issue of adjusting the appellants
along with others who have booked to offer such Sevas appears to be an
argument, which is not acceptable to the TTD, considering the nature of the
Sevas, it is not feasible to adjust the appellants in addition to those who have
already made the bookings and are waiting in the queue. We feel that it may
not be possible for this Court to issue a mandamus to accommodate the
appellants for such a Darshan for which bookings had already been made on
account of the peculiar difficulty which the TTD expressed and therefore, the
option of the TTD to permit the appellants to avail Break Darshan, in our
opinion, was a fair offer, which could be accepted by the appellants, or else
the appellants can also seek the refund of the amount which has been paid by
them.
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. Nos: 615 & 688 of 2024
8. In our opinion, the view expressed by the learned single Judge in
following the decision of the Division Bench judgment rendered in W.A.
No.1078 of 2022 & connected matters, dated 19.10.2023, calls for no
interference. The writ appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J
akn
HCJ & RC, J
W.A. Nos: 615 & 688 of 2024
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Writ Appeal Nos:615 & 688 of 2024
DATE : 09.09.2024
AKN
