APHC010389662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 874 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-10 [3446] J. Thulasi Ram ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant : Sri K. G. Trimoorthy Advocate for Respondents : Learned Government Pleader for Endowments, Sri T. Venu Gopal, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments (Rayalaseema Region) CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 7th August 2025 P C : The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 06.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.8348 of 2025. 2. The petitioner questions the action of respondent No.7 to the extent that it had not followed the provisions of Rule 4(2)(I) of the Rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Immovable Properties and Other Right (Other than Agricultural Lands) Leases and Licenses Rules, 2003. 2 3. Rule 4(2)(I) envisages as under:- “The Executive Authority shall conduct Tender-cum-Public auction compulsorily before three months of expiry of existing license or Lease period. The executive Authority shall also issue a public notice of ten days to that effect in a leading news paper. The Executive Authority shall be personally responsible for delays caused in lease/license auction.” 4. In the instant case, the existing lease was to expire on 31.03.2025 whereas notice was published in the newspaper inviting bids from prospective bidders on 15.02.2025. The notice clearly pointed out that the auction would be conducted on 06.03.2025. 5. The entire case of the petitioner before the learned single Judge was that inasmuch as Rule 4(2)(I) required the Executing Authority to issue a public notice of at least three months before the existing lease, since the needful was not done and the process not initiated within the prescribed window period, the auction was unsustainable. It is not out of place to mention that the petitioner did respond to the auction notice published by the Executive Officer and was found unsuccessful. Having participated in the auction process, the petitioner cannot be permitted to turn around and question the very auction process. 3 6. This issue is no longer res integra. In Adani Gas Ltd., v. Union of India1, the Apex Court, by applying the principle of approbate-reprobate, held that the appellant therein would be precluded from challenging the auction since the appellant had participated in the auction and only thereafter, had challenged the process when its bid was unsuccessful. 7. It was in the light of the aforementioned facts that the learned single Judge proceeded to dismiss the writ petition holding that the period of three months prescribed ought to be understood as with a view to ensure a smooth transition for both the outgoing and incoming leaseholders of the property. We find no perversity or illegality in the view expressed by the learned single Judge. The appeal is found to be without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J AMD 1 [(2022)5 SCC 210] 4 65 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 874 of 2025 Dt : 07.08.2025 AMD