M. MURALIKRISHNA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.C2/726/2018, dtd. 20/7/2020, rejecting the request of the petitioner for refund of the license fee deposited towards tender price amount pursuant to the tender notification vide proceedings in Roc.No.C2/726/2018, dtd. 1/2/2020, for leasehold rights for collection of Uddulu and Ulavalu (Red Gram Dal and Black Gram Dal) for a period of one year from 1/4/2020 to 31/3/2021 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Sec. 56 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 and for a consequential direction to 3rd respondent.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri G.Ramesh Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri G.Ramana Rao, learned standing counsel for 3rd respondent and with their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

(3.) The main grievance of the petitioner is that being the highest bidder for collection of Red Gram Dal and Black Gram Dal offered by the devotees in the 3rd respondent temple for the period 1/4/2020 to 31/3/2021, he deposited an amount of ?9,15,505/-, however, due to covid - 19 pandemic, the temple was not kept open for devotees and thereby, he could not conduct the business and therefore, he made a representation dtd. 15/6/2020 to the Executive Officer of 3rd respondent requesting him to refund the amount of ?9,15,505/- deposited by him and the said representation was rejected by virtue of the impugned order dtd. 20/7/2020. Learned counsel would further submit that subsequently the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent informed to similar other tenderers, who too could not do business because of the covid-19 pandemic to submit representations for extension of the license period instead of refund of the amount and the same would be considered. In fact, in respect of another license relating to the petitioner also similar instructions were given to him by the Executive Officer and he made a representation, which was forwarded to the higher authorities and when the said representation was not considered expeditiously, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13692 of 2020, wherein this Court passed an order dtd. 16/12/2020, directing the respondent authorities therein to consider his representation and pass an appropriate order within three weeks.