B SAMBAIAH Vs. LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA DEVASTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein belongs to a Scheduled Tribe community. It is stated that the petitioners family is engaged in the traditional occupation of making Savaralu for women out of human hair. An advertisement appeared in Udayam, a Telugu Daily, dated 29-11-87 that auction would be held in the premises of Sri Laxmi Venkateswara Devasthanam, Manyamkonda Mandal Mahaboobnagar District, for leasing out the right to collect human hair for the period 1-1-88 to 31-12-88. The petitioner accordingly attended the a action held on 10-12-87. From the record produced by the learned Government Pleader it would appear that this public auction was held in the premises of the temple in the presence of the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam, the hereditary trustee and the Asst. Commissioner of Endowments. Seven persons, according to the record, including the petitioner, had participated in the auction. The record produced by the Devasthanam relating to the auction indicated that while several persons stopped their bid in between Rs. 20,000.00 to Rs. 26,000.00, one Yadaiah offered Rs. 34,500.00 and that bid was improved by the petitioner to Rs. 35,000.00. The petitioners bid happened to be the highest. The petitioner complied with the formalities of depositing Rs. 1,000.00 and paying Rs. 8,500.00 being the 1/4th of the bid amount. What was left was the approval of the Commissioner of Endoments, respondent No. 2 herein. Immediately after the auction was conducted the Executive Officer addressed a letter dated 11-12-87 to the Commissioner of Endowments, setting out the details relating to the auction. He had pointed out that in the past the lease amount varied between Rs. 20,000.00 to 22,000/-. He had further stated that on 10-12-87 a public auction was held at 11 OClock for leasing out the right to collect human hair during the year 1988 in the presence of the Asst. Commissioner. He further stated in that letter that the highest bid was Rs. 35,000.00 relating to the petitioner. Finally he expressed the opinion that this years bid fetched an excess of Rs. 13,000.00 over the past years and sought the approval of the 2nd respondent so that the bid could be formallly given effect to.

(2.) While the matters stood thus, it would appear that one A. Koteswararao of L.B. Nagar addressed a representation dated 14-12-87 to the Commissioner stating that he was willing to pay a lease amount of Rs. 40,000.00. The representation dated 14-12-87 of Koteswararao is not readily found on the record, but there appears to be little doubt that a representation of the nature was received by the Commissioner. On 28-12-87 the Commissioner addressed a memo to the aforesaid Koteswararao directing him to deposit the sum of Rs. 40,000.00 with the Devasthanam within three days from the date of receipt of the memo so that necessary action could be taken. A copy of the aforesaid memo was endorsed to the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam. A separate letter was also addressed to the Executive Officer drawing attention to the offer made by Koteswararao for paying Rs. 40,000.00. The Executive Officer was instructed to report whether Koteswararao had deposited Rs. 40,000.00 with the Devasthanam as instructed in the Memo dated 28-12-87.

(3.) Obviously Koteswararao complied with the direction for depositing Rs. 40,000.00. The Commissioner then addressed a Memo dated 7-1-88 to the Executive Officer wherein he referred to all the past correspondence and expressed the view that the bid of Rs. 35,000.00secured in the public auction held on 10-12-87 is not "found to be fair and reasonable". For that reason the Commissioner vetoed the lease held in public auction on 10-12-87 in favour of the highest bidder. The Executive Officer of the Devasthanam was directed to conduct re-auction of the leasehold rights. After receiving this Memo dated 7-1-88 the Executive Officer addressed a letter to the petitioner on 8-1-88 informing the petitioner briefly that the Commissioner of Endowments declined to approve the bid on the ground that adequate lease amount was not offered and consequently the Commissioner vetoed the highest bid. The petitioner was informed that the re-auction would be held on 20-1-88 at 3 p.m. The Executive Officer advised the petitioner to participate in the re-auction. After receiving this letter the petitioner filed the present writ petition questioning the correctness of the order of the 2nd respondent for withholding the approval of the highest bid according to the public auction held on 10-12-87. The petitioner also seeks a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to implement the leasehold rights in his favour.