APHC010559182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 28839/2025 Between: 1. VLD AGENCY AND CONTRACTORS,, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR P.VIJAYALAJCSHMI DEVI, W/O.P,MAHESH BABU, AGED 37 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 11-49-251, SIVALAYAM STREET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. SRI DURGA MALLESWARASWAM3WARLA DEVASTHANAM, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INDRAKEELADRI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings RC.No.Cl/666/2022, dated 21.08.2025 directing the petitioner firm to pay the balance licence mount of 2 Rs. 1,11,98,198/- within 7 days and as well as the consequential order dt. 18.09.2025 which was served on the petitioner firm on 11.10.2025 is as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and contrary to the directions issued by this Honble Court in the common order passed in W.P.No.25872 of 2024 and W.P No. 30914 of 2024 dt.01.04.2025 and also violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently directing the respondents to continue the petitioner firm to college the toll fee (msum) by setting aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent dt.21.08.2025 and as well as the consequential proceedings dt. 18.09.2025 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner firm to collect the toll fee (rusum) on the vehicles at uphill and dov/n hill of the Devasthanam by suspending the order Vide proceedings RC No.C1/666/2022 dt.21.08.2025 and as well as the consequential order dt. 18.09.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent pending writ petition in this Honhle Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KAPPERA KOTESWARA RAO SC for Endowments, AP Region. 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following Order: Heard Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri Kappera Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 – Temple. 2. It is contended that the petitioner is the highest bidder for maintaining the vehicle parking and collecting toll fees for vehicles reaching 3 the Temple located at the uphill, for a period of two years, with effect from 01.06.2023 to 31.05.2025. In the said auction, the petitioner was granted a license. The petitioner sought extension of license period having regard to the fact that the ghat road leading to the Temple was closed as the authorities have temporarily restricted the movement, during adverse weather conditions and on account of repairs across the ghat road for retention of the wall(s) another parking place to which the petitioner had bid was closed on account of certain civil constructions. The said request of the petitioner was turned down; however, she was provided with an alternate site and was directed to remit an amount of Rs.2,06,38,199/- on or before 30-11-2024. Challenging the said decision of the authorities, the petitioner approached this Court vide writ petition in W.P.No.30914 of 2024 and 25874 of 2024. The said writ petitions were disposed of by this Court, observing that as the designated place was changed from the location for which the petitioner had bid, this Court, while disposing of the writ petition, directed the respondent, in the light of clause 21 of the tender conditions, to fix a lesser amount than the amount that was bid. 3. In pursuance thereof, the impugned order in the writ petition is passed, extending the lease period by another month, i.e., up to 31-12-2025, and directing the petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,11,98,198/. The said proceedings are challenged through the instant writ petition. 4. Learned counsel contends that the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order in disregard to the order of this Court in W.P.Nos.25872 of 4 2024 and 30914 of 2024 wherein this Court vide order, dated 01.04.2025 directed the respondent No.2 for fixing the license fee at a lesser price for the 2nd year after taking into consideration the circumstances under which the petitioner was required to choose to alternate parking area. After the said order, the petitioner was issued a notice. The petitioner has replied to the notice, requesting that she be allowed to pay 60% of the amount payable for the 2nd year and for a proportionate extension of the lease period during which vehicular traffic was stopped on the Ghat Road and the Kankadurga Nagar parking space was closed. However, the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay the license fee as determined earlier i.e., Rs.2,06,38,199/-, after giving credit to the amount that has already been paid. The balance amount of Rs.1,11,98,498/- was directed to be paid by extending the lease for one month from 30.11.2025 to 31.12.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents passed the impugned order extending the license period by one month, which will not amount to compliance with the directions of this Court in the earlier writ petition. During the month of December, the parking place at the uphill would be closed during the process of culmination of ‘Bhavani Dheeksha’, therefore the petitioner would not be in a position to collect any toll. It is contended that earlier directions of this Court were to fix a price at a lesser price than the amount which was initially fixed. However, without reducing the same, the impugned order has been passed. 5 6. The respondent No. 2 has filed a counter-affidavit stating that a substantial portion of the site was utilised for developmental activities and that there has been a reduction in parking space, accordingly license period was extended by 6 months. It is further stated that 40% reduction in the license fee for the 2nd year was deemed not feasible. Thus, it is stated that the respondents have extended the license for another month without reducing the earlier-fixed license fee. Thus it is stated that, the respondents have rightly extended the lease for one month. 7. Considered the submissions. The respondents, while passing the impugned order, did not assign any reasons for their decision to extend the lease for one month, in lieu of reducing the license fee as directed by this court. 8. Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court deems it appropriate that the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is granted extension of license for another three months with effect from 01.01.2026. Having regard to the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders within (04) weeks from the date of receipt of this order to extend the lease/license in favour of the petitioner up to 31.03.2026, upon payment of the same amount of Rs.1,11,98,198/- as was ordered by the 2nd respondent vide the impugned proceedings . 6 9. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 13.11.2025 MSI 7 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 28839/2025 Dated: 13.11.2025 MSI