APHC010007562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3483] WRIT APPEAL NO: 23/2025 along with WRIT PETITION NO: 31312/2024 Between: K V N Enterprises ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. V V N NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(s): 1. NAGARAJU NAGURU 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 3. D V SASIDHAR CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE: 11.03.2025 COMMON ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Impugning the orders of the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 20.12.2024, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.31312/2024 and aggrieved by the rejection of granting interim order in W.P.No.31312/2024, the writ petitioner filed this intra court appeal vide W.A.No.23 of 2025 under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2. In as much as the parties in these writ petition and writ appeal are common and the relief sought are interrelated, both the writ appeal and writ petition are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The contents of the writ petition and writ appeal can briefly be summarized hereunder: (a) The petitioner/appellant is running human hair business by collecting human hair from various temples situated in A.P. and Telangana States. In order to allot license rights for collection of human hair, the 3rd respondent (Sri Maddileti Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam) has conducted auction on 15.10.2024 with only two bidders (petitioner and 4th respondent), in opaque manner, and selected 4th respondent, who quoted only for Rs.1,35,00,000/-. As the auction amount will be fetched more than Rs.1,80,00,000/-, as in the year 2022-2023, the petitioner has approached the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam and requested him to cancel the tender process and issue fresh tender notification. The Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent had sent a proposal to the 2nd respondent (The Commissioner, Endowments Department) vide letter dated 22.10.2024, which was vetoed by the 2nd respondent on 05.11.2024 holding that the amount fetched in the public auction is abnormally low in view of low competition and directed the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent to conduct fresh e-tender, sealed tender and public auction afresh by giving wide publicity. The Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent has intimated the said decision of the 2nd respondent to the 4th respondent through letter dated 08.11.2024. Pursuant to the proceedings of 2nd respondent dated 05.11.2024, the 3rd respondent had not conducted public auction afresh. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.30710 of 2024. (b) Upon the application of 4th respondent dated 09.11.2024, the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent addressed a letter to 2nd respondent to review the orders dated 05.11.2024 and requested to pass orders in favor of 4th respondent. Pending consideration of the said writ petition, the 2nd respondent, reviewed his own order dated 05.11.2024 and issued proceedings vide K.Dis.No.D1/COE-14025(34)/77/2024 dated 20.12.2024, without having any power prescribed under Act 30 of 1987 and confirmed the leasehold rights to the 4th respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition vide W.P.No.31312/2024, wherein an interim order was sought to suspend the said proceedings of the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the said writ petition. The learned single judge, after hearing the arguments from both sides, refused to grant the interim relief as sought by the petitioner vide common order dated 03.01.2025, holding that the matter would be decided only after filing of the counters by the respondents. The learned single judge further observed that, any action taken by the respondents, shall be subject to outcome of the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said refusal, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.31312/2024 filed the present appeal vide W.A.No.23 of 2025. 4. Heard Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant herein while reiterating the grounds of appeal and contents of the writ affidavit submitted that, the 2nd respondent, having issued proceedings dated 05.11.2024 and directed the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent to conduct fresh e-tender, sealed tender and public auction afresh by giving wide publicity, cannot review his own order vide proceedings dated on 20.12.2024 confirming the leasehold rights to the 4th respondent for collection of human hair from the 3rd respondent, contrary to provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (APC & HRI Act). In fact, the petitioner is ready and willing to pay Rs.1,80,00,000/- towards the said contract. The learned single judge, after hearing the matter at length, refused to grant the interim relief and adjourned the matter for filing of counters. Hence, filed the writ appeal. If the impugned proceedings dated 20.12.2024 were not suspended, the 3rd respondent may assign contract to the 4th respondent, affecting the rights of the petitioner. In such eventuality, the purpose of filing the writ petition would be defeated. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 6. Whereas, learned government pleader contended that, the petitioner has participated in the earlier notification and being the highest bidder, he became defaulter in not paying the bid amounts. As a defaulter, he is not entitled to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and the same is not maintainable. In view of the same, the petitioner cannot raise unnecessary allegations against the officials and also, he is not entitled for granting the interim relief. The petitioner has not raised any valid grounds warranting the interference of this Court and the both the writs deserves dismissal and accordingly prayed to dismiss them. 7. On the other hand, Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that, he has instructions from the 4th respondent that he is ready and willing to pay Rs.1,80,00,000/- towards contract for collection of human hair to the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam. He further submitted that, being a defaulter, the petitioner cannot raise any grievance. Further, as per the observations of the learned Single judge, that any action taken by the respondents, shall be subject to outcome of the writ petition, no appeal can be filed against the said impugned order. As such, prayed to dismiss the writ petition and writ appeal as well. 8. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for respective parties. 9. It is not in dispute that in the auction conducted by the 3rd respondent- Devasthanam, only two bidders have participated i.e., petitioner and the 4th respondent wherein the contract was given to the 4th respondent, who quoted only for Rs.1,35,00,000/-. It is the contention of the petitioner that, the auction amount would be fetched more than Rs.1,80,00,000/-, as in the year 2022- 2023. Moreover, it could be culled out from the above submissions that, both the petitioner and 4th respondent are ready and willing to pay Rs.1,80,00,000/- towards contract for collection of human hair to the 3rd respondent- Devasthanam. This Court finds that, there is every possibility of fetching Rs.1,80,00,000/-, if auction was conducted afresh by giving wide publicity. In view of the said circumstances, instead of adjudicating the aspect that as to how the 2nd respondent has reviewed his own order vide proceedings dated 20.12.2024, this Court, in the interest of public, would deem it appropriate to direct the authorities concerned to go for fresh auction. As such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the both the writ appeal and writ petition with the following direction: “The authority concerned shall conduct fresh auction for collection of human hair, in consonance with the provisions of APC & HRI Act, 1987 and rules in vogue.” The writ appeal and writ petition are, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR,J RAVI CHEEMALAPATI,J BRS