Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In his counter-affidavit, the 2nd respondent submits that Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Mangalagiri was endowed with Ac.8.25 cents of land; after following the procedure, stipulated under Section 80 of the Act, the subject lands were proposed to sale by way of tender-cum-public auction; the task of conducting the auction was entrusted to the VGTM Urban Development Authority after making a lay out; for the 48 plots put to sale, as many as 108 persons submitted their tenders; after the tenders were opened, an auction was conducted for the plots; the 5th respondent participated in the auction and offered the highest bid amount; the bids offered by the 5th respondent, in the public auction, were higher than the bids offered by the petitioners; the highest bids were accepted, and the auction was confirmed in favour of the 5th respondent; Under Rule 14 of the A.P. Religious and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Alienation of Immovable property Rules, 1987 (hereinafter called the Rules), the Commissioner is the competent authority either to confirm or refuse the sale; condition No.24, if construed literally, would require the bid of the second highest bidders to be considered for the second plot; this would result in the institution being put to loss to the extent of the difference in the bid amounts offered by the second highest bidder and the highest bidder; condition No.15 enables the Commissioner of Endowments to accept a single bid or the highest bid; restricting the highest bidder to only one plot would result in less competition among the bidders, and the institution would not receive a proper bid amount; the institution would not thereby get a better price as the number of participants would be less in number; participation of the 5th respondent, in the auction for other plots, has resulted in an increase in the bid amount; as a result, the institution has benefited by Rs.20,91,356/-; he had relaxed auction condition No.24 in the interest of the institution; VUDA was empowered to allot the plot to the second highest bidder at the rate offered by the first highest bidder in case the highest bidder failed to pay the bid amount; this condition is subject to confirmation by the Commissioner; this condition attracts sale by private negotiations which is not permitted by law; the authorities are, therefore, not bound to call the next highest bidders of other plots, and offer them the plots at the rate quoted by the highest bidder, and allot them if they agree to pay the said price; the 2nd respondent had rightly returned the EMD paid by the petitioners; condition No.24, restricting allotment of one plot to one person, is not in the interest of the institution and was, therefore, relaxed; the highest bid amount was confirmed in the interests of the institution; in respect of nine plots, only a single bid was received; from out of these 9 plots, four plots received a reasonable bid amount of Rs.29,000/- per square yard; condition No.15 confers powers on the Commissioner to approve a single bid also; and, as the bid amounts fetched in the public auction was fair and reasonable, these bids were confirmed.

On the other hand the Learned Government Pleader for Endowment, Sri V.T.M. Prasad, Learned Standing Counsel for the subject institution and Sri G. Rama Rao, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent, would submit that condition No.24 is formal in nature and can be waived by the Commissioner; the 5th respondent was the highest bidder for all the eight plots allotted to him; confirming the sale in favour of the highest bidder is in larger public interest as it would maximise the revenues of the religious institution; sale of public property for the highest price would augment the revenues of the temple; the auction conditions do not provide for the plots to be sold to the second highest bidders in cases where the highest bidder is ready and willing to pay the highest bid amount, and purchase the plots; and condition No.24 is ultravires Article 14 as it would deprive the subject temple of their revenues being maximised, on the subject plots being sold to the highest bidders.

Suffice it to note that in putting the immovable properties of the subject temple to sale, at the auctions held on 27.12.2013, neither the Act nor the Rules made thereunder, or even the conditions of auction, conferred any power on the Commissioner of Endowments to either waive or relax the rigour of the auction conditions. Condition No.24 of the auction conditions restricts allotment of one plot to one person. It stipulates that, if an applicant is successful in two plots, only one plot of his choice will be allotted. It does not stand to reason that the Commissioner of Endowments should on his own accord, and without statutory sanction or conferment of power under the conditions of tender- cum-auction, arrogate to himself the power to relax the rigour of, or waive, condition No.24 of the conditions of auction after the auction has been held and concluded. While augmentation of revenue would be the paramount consideration, in the sale of immovable properties of religious institutions, the requirement of condition No.24 also necessitated compliance. The said condition would have been satisfied and revenues of the subject temple maximised, if not more than one plot was allotted to each of the highest bidders, and the other plots were allotted to the next highest bidder at a price not lower than the bid quoted by the highest bidder for the plot, which was not being allotted to the highest bidder only because he was already allotted a plot. Condition No.23, of the conditions of tender-cum-auction, stipulates that, in case the applicant fails to pay the instalments in time or if the allotment is cancelled due to any reason, that plot will be allotted to the next highest bidder at the same rate of the highest bidder, and the power vests with the Urban Development Authority. While condition No.23, whereby a plot can be allotted to the next highest bidder at the same price at which the highest bidder has submitted his bid, would no doubt apply only in cases where the highest bidder has failed to pay the instalments in time or if the allotment is cancelled due to any reason, it does indicate that, even in case of allotment of a plot in terms of condition No. 24, it is not obligatory for the respondent officials to allot the plot to the second highest bidder if he is unwilling to pay the bid amount offered by the highest bidder for the said plot. The revenues of the religious institution would be maximised, and larger public interest served, only if the price quoted by the highest bidder is stipulated as the price which the second highest bidder should pay for allotment of the plot in his favour. This would not only ensure compliance with condition No.24 (of not more than one plot being allotted to one bidder), but would also ensure that the religious institution does not suffer any monetary/financial loss thereby. Adoption of such a procedure would not amount to a sale by private negotiations, as the plot is being allotted to the second highest bidder in the auction, that too at the price which the highest bidder has offered. Condition No.15, of the conditions of tender-cum-auction, provides that the highest bidders highest bid shall be subject to the order of confirmation of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad and the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad has full rights to accept or reject the single bid and the highest bid. Condition No.15 is merely a reiteration of Rule 14 of the Rules whereunder power is conferred on the Commissioner of Endowments to either confirm or refuse to confirm the sale of the plots. The power conferred on the Commissioner, both under Rule 14 of the Rules and condition No.15, has to be exercised fairly and reasonably and not at his whims and fancies.

It matters little that the conditions of auction stipulated by VGTM Urban Development Authority is as per its bye-laws, since Rule 12 of the Rules requires the conditions of auction to be approved by the Committee before auction is conducted by the Executive Officer or the Trustee. Having approved the auction conditions (including condition No.24) it is not open to the respondents to contend that these conditions, prepared by the VGTM UDA as per its bye-laws, does not necessitate adherence to by the Commissioner of Endowments. The best interest of the institution is served by maximising its revenues which can be achieved by selling the plots at the highest bid received in the auction. It hardly matters whether the plot is sold to the highest bidder or to the second highest bidder, provided the sale price is the price quoted by the highest bidder in the auction. I find considerable force in the submission made, on behalf of the petitioners, that if the public at large were made aware that condition No.24 would be waived, several others may also have participated in the auction and submitted their bids for several plots.