Tiragati Chinnababu v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY W.P.No.28785 of 2015 O R D E R:

The case of the petitioners is that the 4th respondent-temple conducted public auction on 12.08.2015 for granting lease hold rights in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.182 to an extent of Ac.20.52 cents; 246 Ac.3.84 cents; 341 Ac.2.57 cents; and 792 Ac.7.20 cents and petitioners were declared as the highest bidders. Since the petitioners were declared as the highest bidders, they have deposited part of the bid amount and requested time for depositing remaining amount. Meanwhile, the auction conduted on 12.08.2015 was cancelled and respondents have proposed to conduct auction once again on 25.08.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. When the matter was listed on 08.09.2015, the matter was adjourned for the instructions of the learned Standing counsel appearing for 4th respondent.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Standing counsel for the 4th respondent on instructions submits that no such auction was conducted on 25.08.2015 and was knocked out in anyone's favour.

She further submits that the petitioners failed to deposit the amount as per the terms and conditions of the tender and only to drag on the proceedings, the present writ petition is filed.

It is to be seen that the very basis on which the writ petition is filed is non existent, since no auction is conducted on 25.08.2015. When such is the case, the petitioners have to file representations seeking extension of time for payment and it is for the respondents to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. In view of the submission made by the learned Standing counsel for the 4th respondent, the cause in the writ petition does not survive.

Hence, the writ petition is premature.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J Date: 09.09.2015 dv