B. Durga Prasad vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1903 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

WRIT PETITION Nos.7110, 7120, 7126, 7150, 7165, 7176,

           7279, 7707, 7827, 7911 & 8008 OF 2021

COMMON ORDER:

1     Since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is one

and the same, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of by this

common order.


2     The Writ Petitioners are successful tenderers for the

year 2019-2021 ending by 31.3.2021 for conducting the

business in the shops allotted for selling coconuts, bangles,

canteen etc., in the respondent temple area for a lease

amount payable as per tender auction conditions.

3 For the sake of convenience and since the sum and

substance of all the Writ Petitions is one and the same, I refer

to the facts as pleaded in W.P.No.7110 of 2021, which are as

follows:

4 The case of the petitioner is that the third respondent -

Sri Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu, Karimnagar

District had issued tender notification in R.C.No.L/139/2018

inviting tenders from interested bidders for running the shop

to sell the coconuts to the devotees for the period from

01.4.2019 to 31.3.2021 i.e. for a period of two years. In

pursuance of the same, the petitioner participated in the

tender and became highest bidder and has been running the

coconut shop in the premises of the third respondent temple

by paying requisite amount. However, due to Covid - 19

pandemic, the petitioner had to close the shop from March

2020 till October 2020 as such he suffered loss of business

for more than seven months. Due to partial lifting of

lockdown, the petitioner could do some business but due to

prevailing situation in the State, the number of devotees

visiting the temple has been drastically reduced and as such

he is not in a position to do regular business as was being

done prior to the eruption of the pandemic. The petitioner

along with other vendors requested the Executive Officer of

the third respondent for extension of the lease period by three

more years in view of the loss sustained by them. Thereupon,

the Executive Officer addressed letter dated 02.02.2021 to the

Commissioner of Endowments, requesting him to consider his

proposals sent vide proceedings dated 18.02.2020 wherein he

positively recommended for extension of lease period.

However, till date, the Commissioner of Endowments has not

responded to the said proposals / recommendations made by

the Executive Officer of the temple.

5 It is the further case of the petitioner that to their utter

shock and surprise, the respondents have issued the

impugned tender notice dated 12.3.2021 intimating to the

public that e-tender auction would be held on 26.3.2021 at

12.00 PM for running the shops mentioned therein including

the shop for selling coconut for a period of two years from

01.4.2021 to 31.3.2023. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner

filed the present Writ Petition.

6 While admitting the Writ Petition, this Court by order

dated 25.3.2021 passed order in I.A.No.1 of 2021 suspending

the operation of the impugned tender notification subject to

the condition that the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the

arrears payable to the temple within a period of one month

and on such payment, the petitioner shall be permitted to

conduct his existing business for a period of three months i.e.

from 01.4.2021 to 30.6.2021.

7 While so, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 stating

that only 25% of arrears have been deposited in terms of the

interim order and requested the Court to extend the time to

deposit the remaining 25% arrears up to 31.12.2021 and also

to extend the lease period up to 31.3.2023 by contending that

due to the Corona pandemic the temple is closed for the

period from 21.4.2021 to 30.4.2021 and also due to the

drastically reduction in the number of devotees visiting the

temple and further prayed not to insist any more amounts.

8 The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments,

Karimnagar District and Executive Officer (FAC) of the Temple

filed counter admitting the factum of imposing lockdown

throughout the country. It is also admitted in the counter

that the petitioner was unable to carry out the business

during the lockdown period i.e. for a period of 78 days for

which period the temple remained closed for devotees.

However, it is submitted that even the temple had sustained

huge financial loss in the form of reduction of its revenue

accruing from the contributions and donations of the devotees

and that the temple is also finding it difficult to pay salaries to

the employees and as such not only the petitioner but also the

temple is at loss. It is submitted that the stipulated lease in

favour of the petitioner is from 01.4.2019 to 31.3.2021.

Therefore, he cannot seek extension of the lease period for a

further period of one year. It is further submitted that since

there are no orders from the Commissioner of Endowments,

the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for extension;

and therefore, the temple has issued fresh tender notification.

It is further submitted that even as per the interim orders of

this Court passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021, the petitioner failed to

abide by the orders of this Court and hence he cannot seek

extension of the lease period beyond 30.6.2021.

9 Heard Sri R.N.Hemendranath Reddy, Sri C.H. Satish

Kumar and Ch.Ravinder learned counsel for the petitioners in

all the Writ Petitions and Sri Kotha Jaganmohan Reddy,

learned Standing Counsel for Endowments/respondent

Temple and Government Pleader for Endowments.

10 The learned counsel for the petitioners in one voice

submitted that the petitioners have faced severe financial and

economic troubles due to the Covid - 19 pandemic and also

due to the fact that the number of devotees visiting the temple

has drastically plummeted due to fear of the pandemic. In

such circumstances the respondent temple without taking

into consideration the miserable and pathetic situation of the

petitioners, has issued the impugned notification calling fresh

tenders. It is further submitted that in the second wave also

the temple was closed for some days and the percentage of the

devotees visiting the temple has also significantly come down.

Therefore, it is just and necessary to strike down the

impugned tender notification as is being callous otherwise the

petitioners would be put to serious and irreparable loss and

relied on Devashree Ispat Private Limited V. State of

Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Dept.,

Hyderabad1.

11 On the other hand Sri Kotha Jaganmohan Reddy, the

learned Standing Counsel for the Endowments - respondent

Temple submitted that the petitioners are due crores of

rupees payable to the Temple and extension of the lease

period for a further period of one year is contrary to the Rule

15 of the Immovable Properties and Other Rights (Other than

Agricultural Lands), Leases and Licenses Rules, 2003, which

says that "any lease or license granted, continued or allowed

to be continued otherwise in accordance with rules shall be

null and void". He further submitted that even the temple

had sustained huge financial loss in the form of reduction of

its revenue accruing from the contributions and donations of

the devotees and that the temple is also finding it difficult to

pay salaries to the employees and as such not only the

petitioners but also the temple is at loss. He further

submitted that the petitioners instead of paying 50% of the

1 (2021) 0 Supreme (Telangana) 17

arrears as ordered by this Court vide order dated 25.3.2021,

have only paid 25% of the arrears and that the subject temple

is currently undergoing huge financial uncertainties and at

this stage stoppage of the tender would have serious

implications over the financial stability of the entire

institution and also upon the lives of the staff who depend on

the temple for their livelihood. He lastly contended that the

financial position of the temple is more precarious than that

of the petitioners, therefore, the impugned notification cannot

be put at stake and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petitions.

12 No doubt, it is an admitted fact by both parties that the

temple was under lockdown for a period of 78 days. The lease

of the petitioners came to an end by 31.3.2021. However, this

Court by order dated 25.3.2021 granted extension of the lease

of the petitioners till 30.6.2021 i.e. for a period of 90 days. It

is to be noticed that not only the petitioners but also the

temple had sustained huge loss during the lockdown period.

In so far as the devotees not visiting the temple and the

petitioners faced loss is concerned, it is a part of business.

Once the petitioner participated in an auction, he should have

knowledge and should be ready to enjoy the profit as well as

to sustain the loss equally. There cannot always be profit and

at the same time loss due to any unforeseen situation. Taking

advantage of the situation, the petitioners cannot seek

extension beyond the lease period as a matter of right. As

seen from the tender notification, there is no mention for such

extension of lease period.

13 Further, during the course of arguments, when there

was a submission made from the side of the petitioners that

the Government of Andhra Pradesh has taken up a policy

decision to extend existing lease periods by one more year

taking into consideration the effect of Covid- 19 pandemic and

they are expecting the same instructions from the

Government of Telangana also, this Court, basing on the said

submission and by taking a lenient view towards the

petitioners, directed the petitioners to pay 50% of the arrears

within a period of one month. Petitioners have accepted the

said interim order. However, the petitioners themselves

admitted that they have not paid the 50% of arrears as

ordered by this Court by way of interim measure, but paid

25% of the arrears only with delay and some are still due. So

they became defaulters as they failed to comply with the said

order. They have not sought for extension of time to pay the

amounts in April 2021. Hence their bona fides cannot be

appreciated. The petitioners have no legitimate right to

continue in the lease premises beyond the lease period. More

over, it is to be seen that though the lease of the petitioners

came to end by 31.3.2021, still they were in occupation of the

leased premises till 30.6.2021 in pursuance of the interim

order of this Court dated 25.3.2021. The petitioners contend

that there was lockdown of 78 days during the Corona

Pandemic. Even according to that, they enjoyed 90 days of

extended period from 31.3.2021 till 30.6.2021. So they

cannot agitate on that ground that they have not enjoyed the

full time lease period.

14 It is to be seen that the temple has to run its

administration and has to pay salaries to the staff besides

overheads and maintenance charges and it is depending on

the revenue generated from out of the lease amounts.

Therefore, the interest of the temple has also to be protected.

If the petitioners do not pay the lease amount to the temple,

the temple also would face hardship as it has no sufficient

funds and no other source of income. On one hand the

petitioners did not pay the lease amounts fully nor did they

comply with the interim order of this court by paying 50% of

the arrears due. In such circumstances, the action of the

respondent temple in issuing the impugned tender notification

cannot be questioned since stoppage of the tender cum public

auction process would have serious financial implications on

the entire institution.

15 Further, it may be a fact that the Executive Officer of

the temple has sent some proposals to the Commissioner of

Endowments recommending the case of the petitioners for

some favourable consideration. The Government declined to

consider the recommendations of the Commissioner and

returned the file. Basing on the factual scenario, this Court is

nothing to do with that aspect.

16 As stated supra, due to Covid-19 lockdown 78 days the

business of the petitioners was completely closed. This Court

granted them 90 days to continue the business. Hence it

cannot be said because of lockdown they sustained loss. In

so far as devotees not visiting the temple in large number is a

part of business and it is all in the game. Profit and loss are

bound to happen. The petitioners are at liberty to approach

the Government seeking any relief. The petitioners have not

filed any evidence to show the amount of loss they have

sustained and have brought to the notice of the respondents

with regard to the loss sustained. In the absence of any

determination of loss sustained, a blanket relief extending the

lease period to the petitioners is unjust and unreasonable

keeping in view the functioning of the temple. The judgment

of Devashree Ispat Private Limited case is not applicable to

the facts of the present case.

17 For all the above reasons, I see no merit in these Writ

Petitions and accordingly they are liable to be dismissed as

devoid of any merit.

18 In the result, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No

order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

these Writ Petitions, shall also stand dismissed.

__________________________ T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.

Date:01.7.2021

Kvsn