ORDER : G. Rohini, J. The petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus declaring the auction conducted by the 2nd respondent/Devastanam on 27-6-2003 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Section 82 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short "the Act") and for consequential reliefs. 2. The petitioners who are 11 in number claim to be the owners of small extents of land situated in Gonchala and Thimmapuram villages in East Godavari District. It is claimed that they are small farmers and landless poor persons as defined under Section 82(2) of the Act. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the 2nd respondent-Devastanam is the owner to an extent of Ac.30.16 cents of agricultural land situated in S.No.234 and 236 of Thimmapuram village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District. Since the lands were kept vacant for about 10 years, the petitioners 1 to 6 made a request to the temple authorities to lease out the said lands in their favour at the rate of 10 bags of paddy per acre. Since there was no response they fled W.P.No. 11238 of 1997, which was dismissed on 25-6-1997 observing that it is open to the Executive Officer to consider the representations of the petitioners for lease of lands in favour of the petitioners in accordance with law. It is stated that they made representations dated 13-7-1997 and 15-74997 and since there was no response, the petitioners 1 to 3 filed W.P.No. 18279 of 1997. The said writ petition was disposed of on 18-12-1997 with a direction to dispose of the representations made by the petitioners within two months. Thereafter the petitioners were informed that it is not possible to lease out the said lands and that the Devastanam has taken up self-cultivation under the instructions of the Commissioner, Endowments Department. Thus from the year 1988 till 27-6-2003, the Devastanam itself cultivated the lands. Every year the Executive Officer has shown losses on the cultivation of lands by way of public notification. 3. While so, the 2nd respondent-Devastanam without giving any public notification issued auction notification on 15-6-2003 and also conducted auction on 27-6-2003. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said auction was conducted without issuing any public notification and without considering the representations of the petitioners and disregarding the orders of this Court in the earlier writ petitions. 3. While so, the 2nd respondent-Devastanam without giving any public notification issued auction notification on 15-6-2003 and also conducted auction on 27-6-2003. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said auction was conducted without issuing any public notification and without considering the representations of the petitioners and disregarding the orders of this Court in the earlier writ petitions. It is alleged that there was no publication at all so far as auction conducted on 27-6-2003 is concerned, and that none of the villagers of Gonchala, Thimmapuram are aware of the said auction. It is further alleged that the Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent-Devastanam with a mala fide intention colluded with the 3rd respondent and conducted auction and granted lease in favour of the 3rd respondent, who is said to be the highest bidder, fixing the makta at 16 bags of paddy per acre. The contention of the petitioners is that so far as adjoining lands situated in S. No. 236 is concerned, a Division Bench of this court fixed the annual lease at 20 bags per acre and thus granting lease in favour of the 3rd respondent fixing makta only at 16 bags per acre is nothing but on account of collusion between the respondents 2 and 3. It is also pleaded that the petitioners being small farmers are entitled to the grant of lease and they are also prepared to cultivate the above lands by paying makta at the rate of 18 bags per acre and That the action of the respondents in not considering their claim is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the statutory provisions. 4. I have heard Sri C. Subba Rao the learned counsel for The petitioners, the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent-Devastanam, Sri E. Sambasiva Pratap, Sri M.Laxmana Sarma, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the auction conducted is not only in violation of the statutory provisions but also contrary to the orders of this Court in W.P.Nos. 11238 of 1987 and 18279 of 1997. He contends that the fact that temple lands were leased out at the rate of 16 bags per acre and that too, for a short period of six months, shows that the Executive Officer is not acting m the interest of the Institution, but at the behest of vested interests. 11238 of 1987 and 18279 of 1997. He contends that the fact that temple lands were leased out at the rate of 16 bags per acre and that too, for a short period of six months, shows that the Executive Officer is not acting m the interest of the Institution, but at the behest of vested interests. The learned counsel strenuously contended that there is absolutely no reason to ignore the claim of the petitioners who are small farmers and offered to pay 18 bags per acre. The learned counsel in support of his contention placed reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court in C. Reuni Reddu v. Govt. of A.P., AIR 1986 SC 1158 . 6. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Devastanam contended that auction was conducted after giving wide publicity by publication of notice in newspapers and also by way of Tom - Tom in all the villages. It is contended that the allegation of collusion between the respondents 2 and 3 is false and baseless and the same is invented only for the purpose of this writ petition. The learned counsel also submitted that petitioners never made any representations offering 18 bags of paddy per acre as makta and at any rate he contends that the petitioners are not entitled to any claim any right for grant of lease on their favour and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limini. 7. It is relevant to note that in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent- Devastanam it is stated that the allegations made by the petitioners that the Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent-Devastanam has showed loss in self-cultivation of the lands in question is absolutely false. It is further stated that notification with regard to public auction was published in Andhra Jyothi daily newspaper on 18-6-2003 and wide publicity was also given by distribution of pamphlets and by beat of Tom - Tom in Thimmapuram and other surrounding villages. It is further stated that public auction was held at Village Secretariat and as many as 12 bidders have participated from Pitapuram, Navara, in addition to Gonchala and Thimmapuram villages which fact shows that the allegations of the petitioners that the villagers of Gonchala, Thimmapuram are not aware of the auction same is absolutely false. It is further stated that public auction was held at Village Secretariat and as many as 12 bidders have participated from Pitapuram, Navara, in addition to Gonchala and Thimmapuram villages which fact shows that the allegations of the petitioners that the villagers of Gonchala, Thimmapuram are not aware of the auction same is absolutely false. It is also stated that the 6th petitioner herein filed W.P.No. 12101 of 2003 impugning the very same auction notification dated 15-6-2003 and thus it is clear that the petitioners are very well aware of the auction. So far as makta fixed, it is stated that public auction was conducted to grant lease for only one crop and that the 3rd respondent offered highest bid of 16 bags of paddy per year for single crop. The plea of the petitioners that they made representations offering 18 bags of paddy and also offered to furnish security has been specifically denied. Thus it is pleaded that the procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent is in accordance with law and that the possession of the land was already handed over to the highest bidder on 7-7-2003 and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 8. As can be seen from the material on record, admittedly the land was under self-cultivation of the 2nd respondent-Devastanam for the past 5 years. The leasehold lights for one crop were put to auction on 27-6-2003. In the light of the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent stating that auction notification was published in Andhra Jyothi daily newspaper on 18-6-2003 and that publication was also made by beat of Tom -Tom and by distribution of pamphlets in Thimmpuram and Gonchala villages and that altogether 12 bidders from different villages have participated in auction, I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioners that there was no proper publicity. As rightly pointed out by the 2nd respondent- Devastanam the fact that one of the petitioners filed W. P. No. 12101 of 2003 challenging the very same auction notification dated 15-6-2003 also makes it clear that the petitioners are aware of the auction. I am also unable to find any substance in the allegation that the lease granted at the rate of 16 bags is too low in view of the fact that it is only for one crop. I am also unable to find any substance in the allegation that the lease granted at the rate of 16 bags is too low in view of the fact that it is only for one crop. The vague allegations of mala fides also do not deserve any consideration in the absence of any material to substantiate the same. 9. So far as other contentions raised by the petitioners, it is relevant to note that in the earlier orders this Court never expressed any opinion about the rights of the petitioners for grant of lease in respect of the land in question. The said writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to consider the representations of the petitioners for grant of lease. As a matter of fact, the petitioners were never the cultivating tenants of the lands in question and as such they cannot claim any benefit of Section 82(2) of the Act. which is attracted only for the leases subsisting as on the date of commencement of the Act. There can be no dispute about the ratio laid down in C. Rami Reddy v. Govt, of A.P. (supra), however, on a careful consideration of the material on record, I am unable to hold that the procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent is in any way contrary to the principles laid down by the Apex Court. 10. It is also pertinent to note that the 2nd respondent having considered their representations, has already informed the petitioners that the 2nd respondent-Devastanam has taken up self-cultivation. Therefore it cannot be said that there is any violation of the orders of this Court. Even assuming that the petitioners are small farmers, they cannot claim any priority for grant of lease in their favour. Nothing has been placed before this Court to establish that lease granted in favour of the 3rd respondent is in violation of any statutory provisions. If the petitioners are genuinely interested they would have participated in the public auction held on 27-6-2003. Having failed to participate in the auction, they cannot seek any direction to consider their alleged offer to pay makta at the rate of 18 bags per acre and to grant the lease in their favour ignoring the auction already confirmed in favour of the 3rd respondent. 11. Having failed to participate in the auction, they cannot seek any direction to consider their alleged offer to pay makta at the rate of 18 bags per acre and to grant the lease in their favour ignoring the auction already confirmed in favour of the 3rd respondent. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the writ petition is misconceived and the relief as sought cannot be wanted. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.