KARAM VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. SEETHARAMACHANDRASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri K. Sarath, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases, Sri Ch. Satish Kumar, learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent, Sri P.C. Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for the 2nd respondent, Sri K. Ramakrishna, learned counsel representing Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent, Sri Zakir Ali Danish, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 4 and 5, Sri K. Jagadeeswar Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 6 to 8 and Sri M. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the 9th respondent. W.P. No. 16270 of 2012 has been filed by the petitioner, who entered into an Agreement with the 3rd respondent in respect of licence to collect fee for vehicle parking and Aaselu collection in Parnasala village, Dummugudem Mandal, Khammam District from 01-04-2012 to 31-03-2013 on payment of Rs. 5,00,250/-. The petitioner is aggrieved by the tender notification-cum-open auction in respect of vehicle parking licence rights in surrounding places of Parnasala temple issued by the 1st respondent on 14-05-2012, which is against Section 115 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and G.O.Ms. No. 67, PR & RD Department, dated 07-02-1996. The petitioner also claimed the 3rd respondent to have conducted a Grama Sabha on 31-05-2012 in which it was resolved that the 1st respondent has no right to conduct open auction for Gram Panchayat lands, which resolution was forwarded to the 4th respondent. As no further action is taken, the petitioner belonging to a Scheduled Tribe desired the action of the 1st respondent in conducting such open auction to be declared illegal and to stay further proceedings on the same.

(2.) The 1st respondent in the counter affidavit of the Executive Officer stated that previously also the 1st respondent conducted public auctions for vehicle parking since number of years with which the 3rd respondent has no right to interfere. It was for the first time that the 3rd respondent conducted such auction and granted the licence rights for 2011-2012 and the 1st respondent had in fact paid amounts to the villagers through the Sub-Collector, Bhadrachalam for acquiring lands surrounding the temple with which the Gram Panchayat had nothing to do. The 1st respondent denied violating any statutory provisions or rules and stated that the auction was conducted on 05-06-2012 in which the 9th respondent became the highest bidder. Hence, he desired the writ petition to fail.

(3.) The 3rd respondent through the counter affidavit of the Panchayat Secretary contended that since 15 years the Gram Panchayat alone was conducting public auction for collection of parking fee of vehicles and the temple has no right to conduct open auction in respect: of the lands of the Gram Panchayat. The counter affidavit also referred to Section 115 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act as empowering the Gram Panchayat to have control over parking places. It was further contended that the Grama Panchayat is providing all amenities in the temple at the time of festivals at its expense and the Panchayat had requested the temple authorities and the District Collector for providing additional funds for the purpose.