JUDGMENT This Writ Petition is filed by two businessmen challenging the orders passed on 12-09-2013 by the Commissioner of Endowments, according permission to the Executive Officer of Sri Gnana Saraswathi Devasthanam, Basara Village, Mudhol Mandal, Adilabad District, for extension of licence for maintenance of a hotel / canteen on the upstairs of the shopping complex building of the temple for a period of three years, commencing from 01-09-2013 in favour of the existing tenant, on an enhanced licence fee of 100%, which amounts to Rs.30 lacs. The case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent has been granted licence for carrying on the business for running a hotel / canteen on the upstairs of the shopping complex building of the temple for a period of three years, which drew to a close on 31-08-2013. A Notification, therefore, was issued by the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam on 06-08-2013 inviting sealed tenders–cum-open auction for running a hotel / canteen for a period of three years commencing from 01-09-2013 onwards. The tenderers are required to deposit earnest money in a sum of Rs.5 lacs in the form of a demand draft, drawn in the name of the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam and then, apply for tender schedule on or before 5-00 pm on 15-08-2013. The tender schedules would be furnished up to 5-00 pm on 18-08-2013. Sealed tenders should be dropped into the box kept for the said purpose up to 10-00 am on 19-08-2013 and after conducting the open auctions, sealed tenders will be opened. However, the public auction could not be conducted on 19-08-2013 for a variety of reasons, including the protest made by the 3rd respondent for conducting the auctions without first the Commissioner of Endowments taking a decision on the representation said to have been submitted by him earlier seeking extension of his licence period by a further period of three years, subject to enhancing the licence fee by 33%. Since the auctions could not be conducted as proposed, the Executive Officer has drawn a detailed Report on 20-08-2013 and submitted the same to the Commissioner of Endowments. Since the auctions could not be conducted as proposed, the Executive Officer has drawn a detailed Report on 20-08-2013 and submitted the same to the Commissioner of Endowments. Acting upon this Report submitted by the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam, the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner of Endowments on 13-09-2013 granting extension of three more years to the sitting tenant subject to enhancement of the licence fee by 100%, inasmuch as the sitting tenant has agreed for enhancing the licence fee by 100%. It appears, the 3rd respondent has also paid the entire licence fee of Rs.30 lacs for the three year period. Heard Smt. D. Padmavathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, Sri Ch. Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Devasthanam and Sri M.V.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. Exercising the power available under Section 82 read with Section 153 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh framed Rules called ‘the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Immovable Properties and Other Rights (other than Agricultural Lands) Lease and Licences Rules, 2003’ (for short 'the Rules’). These Rules, therefore, have statutory force. Rule 3 of the Rules reads as under:- “3. All leases or licenses shall be made by way of public auction:- (1) Provided that the Commissioner may on a request made in Writing by the Executive Authority permit the lease of any property or right otherwise than by way of public auction. If he is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that the interest of the institution or endowment will not suffer thereby, he may grant permission to such executive authority to grant a lease otherwise than by way of public auction. (2) The public auction shall be held at the place where the properties are situated or right exists. Provided that the competent authority may; if he is satisfied that in case the holding of auction at place other than the one in which the properties proposed to be licensed are situated. (2) The public auction shall be held at the place where the properties are situated or right exists. Provided that the competent authority may; if he is satisfied that in case the holding of auction at place other than the one in which the properties proposed to be licensed are situated. Will not be detrimental to secure a proper bid or will be held to secure a better bid or to thwart local collusion among the bidders, permit such auction but auction shall be held, in a district other than the one in which the property is situated.” It is stated by Smt. Padmavathi that as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules, all leases or licences shall be made by way of public auction and only as an exception, otherwise than by public auctions, such leases or licences can be granted if the Commissioner is satisfied for reasons to be recorded, in writing, that the interests of the Institution or Endowment will not suffer thereby. In the instant case, the impugned order has not set out any reasons whatsoever as to how the Commissioner of Endowments is satisfied that granting of the licence in favour of the 3rd respondent would not cause any loss to the Devasthanam. She, therefore, submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the 2nd respondent shall be compelled to conduct open auctions for grant of licence to run and operate hotel / canteen at the upstairs of the shopping complex of the 2nd respondent Devasthanam. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel Sri Satish Kumar would submit that all necessary precautions have been taken for conducting the open auctions, but however, in view of the pandemonium that was created at that time, the public auctions could not be conducted. If the same is repeated, it will cause direct loss to the income of the Devasthanam. In those set of circumstances and coupled with the fact that the 3rd respondent has come up with an offer to enhance the licence fee by 100%, which is considered to be a fair offer, the 1st respondent Commissioner of Endowments has acted in good faith and also properly in the matter and hence, the order could not be interdicted. In those set of circumstances and coupled with the fact that the 3rd respondent has come up with an offer to enhance the licence fee by 100%, which is considered to be a fair offer, the 1st respondent Commissioner of Endowments has acted in good faith and also properly in the matter and hence, the order could not be interdicted. Sri Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would submit that at the time when the 3rd respondent was granted the licence, the 2nd respondent Devasthanam has not made available any infrastructure to enable him to run his operations smoothly, and on the other hand, it is the 3rd respondent, who has made a huge investment of more than Rs.12 lacs and got erected a temporary shed on the terrace of the shopping complex for running the hotel / canteen business. The visiting pilgrims / patrons of the hotel cannot be exposed to the elements of sun and rain and hence, it is essential that there should be a cover provided. Apart from investing such a huge amount with the hope that he will be able to recover its cost in a reasonable period of time, because of the political turmoil in the State for the past nearly one year period, the number of patrons and pilgrims visiting the Devasthanam has drastically come down and as a result of which, he has suffered very heavily and hence, he sought for extension of his licence period for a further period of three years. It is, therefore, contended by him that allowing the 3rd respondent to operate at enhanced licence fee could be in the best interest of the Devasthanam and hence, the Commissioner has rightly suggested that the interests of the Devasthanam would not be suffered in any manner by accepting the offer of enhancing the licence fee by 100%. The Rules clearly set out that all leases or licences shall be made by way of a public auction. That should be the attempt in normal course to be adopted. Only in certain exceptional circumstances, perhaps, and that too, for the reasons to be recorded by the Commissioner, a method otherwise than by public auction, leases or licences can be granted. I am not satisfied that there are any such extraordinary circumstances prevailing warranting exercise of discretion by the Commissioner in this regard. Only in certain exceptional circumstances, perhaps, and that too, for the reasons to be recorded by the Commissioner, a method otherwise than by public auction, leases or licences can be granted. I am not satisfied that there are any such extraordinary circumstances prevailing warranting exercise of discretion by the Commissioner in this regard. However, the glaring error committed by the 2nd respondent in the Notification inviting sealed tenders on 06-08-2013 would have surely resulted in cancellation of the entire process, if not in an unending litigation. The proposed grant of licence is by inviting sealed tenders and also by way of conducting open auctions. For one to participate in the tendering process, every bidder is required to deposit a sum of Rs.5 lacs towards Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) drawn in the form of a demand draft obtained from a banker in the name of the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam and enclosing the said demand draft, he must submit an application on or before 5-00 pm on 15-08-2013 for securing a tender schedule. Once a tender schedule is, thus, secured, it has to be filled in and dropped into the box set apart for that purpose before 10-00 am on 19-08-2013. After 10-00 am on 19-08-2013, the open auctions were slated to be conducted and after the open auctions are completed, sealed tenders are intended to be opened. While this procedure may not have offered much of a difficulty, but however, the failure to visualize the other circumstances by the 2nd respondent could have rendered the entire exercise vitiated. There is no requirement that only those persons, who have filed their sealed tenders, can participate in the open auctions. In other words, even though one may not have filed a sealed tender, he may have also participated in the open auctions. For participation in the open auctions, the issuance of a Hall Ticket is not insisted upon. No separate procedure is prescribed, which is similar and akin to that of procuring the tender schedule. Therefore, even without obtaining any Hall Ticket for participating in the open auctions, one can freely enter the auction hall and then start participating therein. Any person, who is intending to create mischief, can easily misuse such a facility by offering fanciful and unrealistic offer and failure to live up to the same will not render him lose anything. Therefore, even without obtaining any Hall Ticket for participating in the open auctions, one can freely enter the auction hall and then start participating therein. Any person, who is intending to create mischief, can easily misuse such a facility by offering fanciful and unrealistic offer and failure to live up to the same will not render him lose anything. Per contra, if a sealed tenderer emerges as the best bidder and if he fails to live up to the promise made by him, the amount of Rs.5 lacs deposited by him towards EMD is liable to be forfeited. Therefore, all sealed tenderers would be cautioned not to make fanciful offers to reckon the prospects of any one of them or all of them emerging as the best bidders. After emerging as the best bidder, if a tenderer fails to live up to his offer, he will straight-away incur loss of Rs.5 lacs, which has been deposited by way of demand draft towards EMD, whereas there is no such penal provision contemplated for the participants in the open auctions. Therefore, the terms settled by the 2nd respondent, while initiating the process on 06-08-2013, is faulty. The 2nd respondent would do, now, well to prescribe an appropriate condition specifying that all bidders, who have purchased the tender schedules, are also entitled to participate in the open auctions by retaining the auction Hall Ticket, which will be made available along with the tender schedule. If any other person, who may not be willing to file a sealed tender, but prefers to participate in the open auctions, can buy the Hall Ticket for gaining entry into the auction hall by depositing an equal amount (Rs.5 lacs) as security deposit, so that failure to live up to his offer / promise made in the auction would result in forfeiture of the security deposit (EMD) by him. Thus, while leaving it open to those, who purchased tender schedules by making a deposit towards Earnest Money, also eligible to participate for the bidding process in the open auctions, those who may not be willing to file their sealed tenders can gain entry to the auction hall only if they are possessing the Hall Ticket for which purpose also they will have to deposit an equal amount (Rs.5 lacs) representing the Earnest Money. Let this process be completed latest by 31-12-2013 so that licence can be granted for a period of three years commencing from 01-01-2014 to the best bidder. The petitioners and the 3rd respondent herein shall be entitled to participate in the said auction. However, the offer made by the 3rd respondent herein, namely, Rs.30 lacs towards licence fee for the entire period of three years should be treated as the upset price, so that no bid for lesser amount is liable to be accepted. Till 31-12-2013, the 3rd respondent shall be permitted to carry on running of the hotel / canteen and he will be charged only proportionately till 31-12-2013 treating the annual licence fee as Rs.10 lacs. This extension in favour of the 3rd respondent has been granted only to sub-serve the interests of the visiting devotees and pilgrims, who require basic amenity of providing a food stall, otherwise, it will create any amount of difficulties for them. If the 3rd respondent does not emerge as the best bidder, he shall, without any let or hindrance or demur, handover the vacant possession of the premises by 8-00 pm on 31-12-2013 to the 2nd respondent Executive Officer of the Devasthanam and the differential amount shall be refunded to him within a period of thirty days from then. It shall be open to him to carry away all such movable assets, which have been created by him, but he shall not remove any immovable assets or cause any damage to the already existing structures or assets of the 2nd respondent. In case, he emerges as the best bidder, he shall be permitted a minimum period of thirty days time to deposit the differential amount of the licence fee. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.