SRINATH INFRA PROJECTS Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE proceedings of the Commissioner of Endowments dated 06.01.2014, whereby the bid of Sri B.Srinivasa Rao (5th respondent) for plot Nos.4/1, 4/2, 6/1, 6/2, 6/3, 6/4, 7/1 and 7/2 in Lakshmi Narasimha Enclave, Vidyanagar situated in D.No.19 and 55 of Koritipadu, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District belonging to the 3rd respondent temple was confirmed in his favour, is under challenge in these three Writ Petitions as being contrary to the terms and conditions of the auction, illegal, arbitrary, void and without authority of law. A consequential direction is sought to the respondents to confirm sale of the said plots in favour of the petitioners who are the second highest bidders in the said auction for the respective plots.

(2.) FACTS , to the extent necessary, are that the subject temple owned Ac.8.25 cents of land, in D.Nos.19 and 55 of Koritipadu village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District, which were converted into plots for sale by tender -cum -public auction. The 2nd respondent, by proceedings dated 25.05.2004, invited objections for sale, of the aforesaid extents of land of the subject temple, by way of public auction. A gazette notification No.114 dated 05.06.2004 was issued in this regard. The 2nd respondent, by his proceedings dated 02.02.2005, accorded permission to sell the subject land by way of public auction. Pursuant to the request of the Commissioner of Endowments, vide letter dated 26.11.2006, the State Government issued instructions, vide Memo dated 22.12.2006, to the 4th respondent to make a layout and sell the subject land by public auction in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter called the Act). The subject lands were, thereafter, divided into plots, a lay out was sanctioned by the 4th respondent, and the colony was named as Laxmi Narasimha Enclave. The 4th respondent issued auction notice dated 24.11.2009, for sale of the plots in the said enclave, fixing the upset price at Rs.14,500/ - per square yard. The petitioners claim that, except for plot No.5, none of the other plots were sold in the said auction. The 4th respondent is said to have issued another notice on 10.08.2010, inviting bids through the tender - cum -auction mode, fixing the upset price as Rs.14,500/ - per square yard. The petitioners contend that, in the said auction, only plot No.22 was sold. A third auction notice was issued on 11.12.2013 inviting bids, through the tender -cum -auction procedure, fixing the upset price at Rs.23,000/ - per square yard. The petitioners submitted their bids for different plots; their bids and that of the 5th respondent were short listed; and an auction was conducted between them wherein, as compared to the bids submitted by the petitioners, the bids submitted by the 5th respondent was higher.

(3.) THE petitioners would submit that, while condition No.24 of the conditions of tender -cum -auction, permits only one plot to be allotted to each bidder, the 5th respondent was allotted as many as eight plots; Sri B.Giri Babu (the brother of the 5th respondent) submitted his bid for several plots all of which were allotted to him on the ground that he was the highest bidder; the 2nd respondent lacks authority or jurisdiction to relax or modify the tender -cum - auction conditions after the auction is held, more so in view of condition No.22; the 5th respondent is entitled, in terms of condition No.24, only for one plot; and the authorities are bound to call the next highest bidders of the other plots, offer them the respective plots at the price quoted by the highest bidder, and sell the plot to them if they agree to pay the said price. The petitioners assert that they are ready and willing to take their respective plots for the price quoted by the 5th respondent. They are aggrieved by the endorsement of the 4th respondent informing them that their bids were rejected by the Commissioner of Endowments, the same were allotted to the highest bidder and the E.M.D, offered by them, in the form of demand drafts, were being returned.