Sri. N. Naveen Kumar vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 2255 Tel

Item No.9

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                        AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                           W.A.No.316 OF 2021

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)

1.    The appellants/writ petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated

02.07.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14647 of

2021, praying inter alia for issuing directions to the respondent

No.4/temple to extend their contracts that had commenced on

01.04.2020 and were to expire on 31.03.2021, i.e., for a period of one

year, on the ground that they had to shut down their shops due to the

COVID-19 pandemic from March, 2020 to October, 2020 and had

suffered huge loses. Even after partial lifting of the lockdown, the

devotees visiting the temple had drastically reduced and therefore, the

appellants/writ petitioners could not conduct regular business. When

the appellants/writ petitioners approached the respondent No.4/temple

for extension of the lease period by explaining the above

circumstances, the same was extended only for 90 days from

01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021. Aggrieved by issuance of tender notice

dated 25.06.2021 by the respondents inviting applications for running

the shops, including those licenced to the writ petitioners for selling

coconuts to devotees, they approached the court for relief by filing the

captioned writ petition.

2. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments opposed the

writ petition by explaining that any extension of the lease period for a

further period of one year would run contrary to Rule 15 of the

Immoveable Properties and Other Rights (Other than Agricultural

Lands), Leases and Licences Rules, 2003 that stipulates that "any

lease or licence granted, continued or allowed to be continued

otherwise in accordance with rules shall be null and void". It was

submitted that the temple had suffered huge losses due to reduction of

revenue and contributions/donations from the devotees and was

finding it difficult to pay the salaries of the staff and that the financial

stability of the entire institution was dependent on the revenue

generated by the temple.

3. After considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel

for the parties, the learned Single Judge observed that though the lease

of the writ petitioners had expired by the end of March, 2021, the

respondent No.4/temple had granted them an extension for 90 days,

till 30.06.2021. Once the appellants/writ petitioners had participated

in the auction, they should have been ready to take both, the good and

the bad. Having been granted a licence to run the shops for a fixed

period and keeping in mind the fact that even the temple had to pay

salaries to the staff and bear other overheads and maintenance charges

which was dependent on the revenue generated from the lease

amounts, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere in the tender

notification or stop the process and resultantly, the writ petition was

dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners submits that

the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that similar

concessions have been given by the TSRTC and KSRTC; that some

authorities had even extended the period of licence without even

conducting any auction and that the ground for seeking extension of

the licence was genuine as the business of the appellants was seriously

hit by the COVID-19 infection.

5. It is not in dispute that the contract in respect of the shops in

question was awarded in favour of the appellants/writ petitioners only

for a period of one year. Despite that, vide letter dated 26.04.2021,

the licence of both the appellants was extended by the respondent

No.4/temple for a period of 90 days. After exhausting the extended

period, the appellants/writ petitioners approached the court at the

eleventh hour seeking interdiction in respect of the tender notification

dated 25.06.2021. We are informed that though bids were invited by

the respondent No.4/temple for the shops in question, the same did not

result in any allotment and a fresh tender notification had to be issued

on 03.07.2021.

6. Mr. Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent

No.4/temple, who appears on advance notice states that in response to

the second tender notification dated 03.07.2021, two bids have been

accepted in respect of subject shops, though at a lesser price.

7. We are of the opinion that the appellants/writ petitioners could

also have participated in the fresh tender, if they had so desired.

Having failed to do so, it is too late in the day for them to approach

the court challenging the impugned order. Even otherwise, the parties

are governed by the terms of the contract executed by them. The

appellants cannot insist that the respondent No.4/temple must extend

them similar concessions as granted by other authorities. It is

noteworthy that the respondents have on their own given a concession

to the appellants/writ petitioners and had permitted them to continue

occupying the subject shops for a period of 90 days beyond the

contract period of one year.

8. The impugned order does not warrant any interference. The

appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine as meritless along with the

pending applications, if any.

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

30.07.2021 Lrkm/vs