JUDGMENT : M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. 1. The first petitioner-Sri Raghupatruni Chiranjeevi is a practicing Advocate in Amadalavalaa Town, Srikakulam District, whereas, the second petitioner-Sri Telugu Appala Suryanarayana is the Ex-Committee Member of Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Arasavalli Village, Srikakulam District, resorted to this pro bono litigation, filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the inaction of the 2nd respondent to declare the action of the respondents in allowing the construction of function hall by the 9th respondent in the land of Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Arasavalli, as illegal and without permission and also to declare the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not taking action against the illegal construction of the function hall, bring carried by the 9th respondent on the land of the aforesaid temple as illegal. 2. The petitioners, while highlighting the history of the temple town i.e., known as Sthalapuranam in vernacular language, contended that, Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Arasavalli, possessing land of an extent of Acs. 2-68 cents in Sy. No. 12/1 situated at Arasavalli Village, Srikakulam District. Out of the total extent of Acs. 2-68 cents possessed by the temple, the then Government made a proposal to construct T.T.D Kalyana Mandapam in an extent of Ac. 1-20 cents and remaining land admeasuring Ac. 1-48 cents was allotted to Budget Hotel. For construction, of Kalyanamandapam Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) Board in its Resolution No. 656 dated 21.5.2010 has resolved to construct TTD Kalyanamandapam at Arasavalli duly dismantling the existing structures and accorded administrative sanction for Rs. 165.00 lakhs. Further, the Commissioner of Endowments Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh vide Rc. No. L1/38917 dated 16.11.2010 has issued proceedings in which it is stated that the Assistant Commissioner & Executive Officer, Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Arasavalli stated that the said land was allotted to the Archakas by the Government vide G.O. Ms. No. 1388 dated 29.10.2007 and the Archakas submitted the written consent for allotment of land for the purpose of construction of TTD Kalyanamandapam. As per the proceedings, TTD has to construes Kalyanamdapam within a period of two years on the land admeasuring Ac. 1-20 cents subject to the conditions. 3. For construction of a Budget Hotel in Ac. No. 1388 dated 29.10.2007 and the Archakas submitted the written consent for allotment of land for the purpose of construction of TTD Kalyanamandapam. As per the proceedings, TTD has to construes Kalyanamdapam within a period of two years on the land admeasuring Ac. 1-20 cents subject to the conditions. 3. For construction of a Budget Hotel in Ac. 1-48 cents, the Endowments Department entered into Lease Agreement with the Andhra Pradesh Tourism Corporation in the year 2010-2011 on condition that APTDC has to pay annual rent Rs. 3,22,344/- to the Temple and at the end of expiry of lease period, the amount due payable by APTDC to the Temple was Rs. 16.11 lakhs on five years lease. Further, APTDC issued online tender notice to the public dated 20.1.2017 inviting bidders and after scrutiny, the APTDC found successful bidder/9th respondent. The said bidder/9th respondent has entered into service contract/agreement with the APTDC in relation to operation and maintenance of hotel in Arasavalli, but, not for any developments to be made in it. The said bidder/9th respondent while running the Budget Hotel and continuing in possession, started construction of Function Hall illegally adjacent to Budget Hotel without any permission. The 9th respondent is continuing the said construction and the illegal acts of the 9th respondent in connivance with APTDC and the said constructions are liable to be removed as it is in violation of the terms and conditions of the lease and it is prejudicial to the public interest and therefore, prayed for the relief stated supra. 4. The 2nd respondent/Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh filed counter alleging that the Temple is an ancient Temple under the control of Endowments Department as per Notification under Section 6(a)(ii) if the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Hindu, Act 30 of 1987, and it is under the administrative control of an Executive Officer in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Department The 2nd respondent also admitted that the temple owned and possessed Acs. 2-69 cents of land in Sy. No. 12/1. The land is situated approximately 1 Km away to the temple premises and in the year 2010, a meeting was convened on 21.8.2010 for development of the temple land and resolved to allot an extent of Ac. 1-20 cents of temple land for construction of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam Kalyana Mandapam with their funds and an extent of land measuring Ac. The land is situated approximately 1 Km away to the temple premises and in the year 2010, a meeting was convened on 21.8.2010 for development of the temple land and resolved to allot an extent of Ac. 1-20 cents of temple land for construction of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam Kalyana Mandapam with their funds and an extent of land measuring Ac. 1-48 cents to APTDC for construction of a Budget Hotel to cater the needs of visiting pilgrims. In pursuance of the minutes of the meeting held on 21.8.2010, the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, in his Proceedings No. L1/38197/2010 dated 16.11.2010 has allotted and extent of Ac. 1-20 cents of land in Sy. No. 12/1 to APTDC, Government of Andhra Pradesh on lease basis on payment of Rs. 3,22,344/- per annum for a period of 5 years with a condition that the lease amount shall be enhanced by 5% every year on the lease amount of the previous year. The Executive Officer of the Temple entered into lease agreement on 8.2.2012 with APTDC with certain conditions. APTDC constructed a Budget Hotel in Ac. 1-48 cents of land after physical possession of the land was handed over to them by the Temple authorities. The lease period was expired by 7.2.2017 and the temple has received the lease amount for the above lease period. The Managing Director, A.P. Tourism Development Corporation, Government of A.P., vide his Letter No. APTDC/EM/CI/27/2010 dated 30.1.2018 addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Endowments informing that the Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh has taken a decision to appoint an Operational & Maintenance Operator for completion of balance works and additional developments in the project and requested to extend the lease for a period of 99 years and permit to develop the proposed integrated Tourism Project in the land allotted to them which will provide hassle free facilities to the visitors. Basing on the report dated 30.1.2018 of Managing Director, APTDC, the Commissioner of Endowments submitted a report to the Government vide Letter No. L3/1016733/2018 dated 16.3.2018 for granting permission for extension of lease of land Ac. 1-48 cents in Sy. No. 12/1 of Arasavalli Village, Srikakulam District belonging to Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Arasavalli Village in favor of APTDC for a period of 11 years with, effect from 8.2.2017 on annual rent of Rs. 1-48 cents in Sy. No. 12/1 of Arasavalli Village, Srikakulam District belonging to Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Arasavalli Village in favor of APTDC for a period of 11 years with, effect from 8.2.2017 on annual rent of Rs. 3,91,811/- on future enhancement of 30% over the existing rent for every 3 years as per existing lease rules subject to payment of arrear lease amount or Rs. 13,54,324/- excluding advance amount of Rs. 3,22,344/-. The Government in their Memo No. 986437/Endts. II(1)/2018 dated 17.4.2018 has accorded permission to the Commissioner as proposed in the matter. 5. It is further contended that, the lease of immovable properties of an institution is governed by the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Immovable Properties and other Right (other than Agricultural) Leases and Licenses Rules, 2003, issued in G.O. Ms. No. 866 Rev., (Endowments-I) Department dated 8.8.2003. As per clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Rules, no lease of immovable property shall be granted for a period exceeding three years. These Rules were amended and orders were issued vide G.O. Ms. No. 26 Revenue (Endowments-I) Department dated 9.11.2015. As per amended Rule 2(B), no lease or license of immovable property shall be granted for a period exceeding eleven years. The rent/license fee shall be enhanced by thirty percent once in every three years over the existing rent or license fee. Further, as per proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 12, the Commissioner is only the Competent Authority for approval of leases or licenses otherwise than by public auction in all cases irrespective of the category of the institution and the value of the lease. 6. In view of the above, orders were issued vide Proceedings No. L3/1016733/2018 dated 20.4.2018 granting extension of lease for a period of 11 years in favour of APTDC, Government of Andhra Pradesh and the APTDC also paid the lease amount due to the temple in the matter. 7. It is specifically contended in the counter of the 2nd respondent that, APTDC informed through its letter that, M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Limited was selected on open tender as Operational & Maintenance Operator to complete the balance works and to take up additional development works. 7. It is specifically contended in the counter of the 2nd respondent that, APTDC informed through its letter that, M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Limited was selected on open tender as Operational & Maintenance Operator to complete the balance works and to take up additional development works. As per the agreement conditions, the Operational & Maintenance Operator has to make ready the Hotel & Restaurant in full shape for operation and to construct the other proposed components of the said project. Accordingly, the Operational & Maintenance Operator has started the works to complete balance works of Hotel and Restaurant and also started construction of Function Hall/Kalyanamandapam which is an integral part of the project. Thus, the respondents did not violate any of the terms of lease and therefore, no further action need be taken. 8. It is further asserted that, Tourism is one economic sector in India that has the potential to grow at a higher rate and can ensure consequential development of infrastructure of the destinations. Once the locations are developed they may support commercial activities including shops, restaurants will be developed in the nearby areas and generated immediate employment opportunity for the nearby residing society groups and therefore, construction of function hall is for the benefit of the public, but not for any illegal gain and prayed to dismiss the petition, as it is devoid of merits. 9. The 2nd respondent annexed G.O. Ms. No. 866 Revenue, (Endowments-I) Department dated 8.8.2003, G.O. Ms. No. 160 Revenue (Endowments-I) Department dated 23.2.2010, Memo No. 986437/Edndts.II(1)/2018 dated 17.4.2018, in support of his contention. 10. The 4th respondent/Devasthanam, also filed counter, reiterating the grounds raised in the counter filed by the 2nd respondent/Commissioner of Endowments and therefore, to avoid repetition of the contentions, the grounds raised in the counter needs no further extraction. However, the 4th respondent/Assistant Commissioner-cum-Executive Officer of Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Arasavalli Village requested to dismiss the writ petition at the end. 11. The 9th respondent/Managing Director of M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd., filed counter-affidavit, denying material allegations, inter alia, contending that the petitioners without having complete knowledge of the relevant facts and without making an effort to discover the same, have initiated the present proceedings, with a mala fide intention. 11. The 9th respondent/Managing Director of M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd., filed counter-affidavit, denying material allegations, inter alia, contending that the petitioners without having complete knowledge of the relevant facts and without making an effort to discover the same, have initiated the present proceedings, with a mala fide intention. The construction of function hall is not illegal, as projected by the petitioners, but it is in consonance with the contract entered by M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd., consortium, with APTDC. The petitioners have made conscious efforts to suppress material facts and did not place before this Court the contract that covers the subject-matter. Further, the petitioners chose to implead themselves in individual capacity without impleading the legal entity of the 9th respondent, of which 9th respondent is the Managing Director of M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd., a registered company and on this ground alone, he sought dismissal of the writ petition. 12. APTDC entered into a service agreement dated 6.6.2017 (Agreement No. 4/APTDC/AGT/O&M/2017) with M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and also M/s. Picket Shipping and Logistics and B. Bhaskara Rao Consortium (a registered firm) for operation and maintenance of hotel at Arasavelli, Srikakulam District. The allegation of the petitioners that the construction of a function hall is illegal, is baseless and incorrect, in view of Article 7.1 of the contract, which reads as follows: "The operator shall construct function hall, other facilities in the premises of the property towards provision of additional services to the tourists." 13. It is also submitted that construction of a function hall is an integral part of the project covered by the "Operation and Maintenance of Hotel at Arasavalli" in respect of which, the service agreement, dated 6.6.2017 was entered into. 14. The 9th respondent also admitted about the construction of the function hall/convention centre while contending that it is also an integral part of the project for "Operation and Maintenance" of Hotel at Arasavalli in respect of which, the service agreement dated 6.6.2017 was entered into. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioners that the construction of the function hall/convention centre on the land belonging to the temple is illegal and wholly incorrect. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioners that the construction of the function hall/convention centre on the land belonging to the temple is illegal and wholly incorrect. It is contended that, the petitioners made irresponsible allegations against the Government Official and the property belonging to the Temple governed by the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Immovable Properties and other Rights (other than agricultural lands) Leases and Licenses Rules, 2003, more particularly, Rule 4(2)(J)(1), which permits grant of lease to Public Sector Undertakings, Government Organizations, Scheduled Banks, etc., to be given lease/license without conduct of public auction and therefore, Government vide Memo No. 986437/Endts. II(1)/2018 dated 17.4.2018, extended the lease of land of an extent of Ac. 1-48 cents in Sy. No. 12/1 of Arasavalli Village, Srikakulam District in favour of APTDC for a period of 11 years with effect from 8.2.2017 on payment of annual rent of Rs. 3,91,811/-, and on enhancement of 30% over the exiting rent for every 3 years, subject to payment of arrears of lease amount of Rs. 13,54,324/-, excluding advance amount of Rs. 3,22,344/-. 15. The 9th respondent/M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd., submitted an application on 20.1.2018 to the Panchayat Secretary, Kazipeta Village, Srikakulam District alongwith the plan and agreement, dated 6.6.2017, for approval of building plan to construct function hall within Kazipet Panchayat Area, Srikakulam, duly signed by the Divisional Manager, APTDC, Visakhapatnam on 2.2.2018. The Panchayat Secretary, Kazipet addressed a letter to APTDC asking for clearance/NOC in relation to the said plan. On 14.3.2018, the APTDC addressed a letter to the Panchayat Secretary, Kazipeta Gram Panchayat, Srikakulam, informing that APTDC had no objection in relation thereto for construction of function hall by M/s. Picket & Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Visakhapatnam. The construction was started before the expiry of the 30 days period contemplated in Rule 26 of the A.P. Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002. Since no orders of sanction or refusal were communicated, on instructions of APTDC, construction was started,: whereupon a notice was issued by the Gram Panchayat, Kazipet on 24.12.2017 and the same was immediately stopped and restarted after the expiry of 30 days period. The same was again stopped immediately upon grant of interim order in the public interest litigation. Finally, he requested this Court to dismiss the petition and he filed several documents in support of the counter. 16. The same was again stopped immediately upon grant of interim order in the public interest litigation. Finally, he requested this Court to dismiss the petition and he filed several documents in support of the counter. 16. During hearing, Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the Lease Agreement dated 8.2.2012 between Executive Officer of the Temple and APTDC was only for construction of Budget Hotel on the Temple land. But, construction of a function hall separately is not part of the lease agreement and by constructing function hall/convention hall, the 9th respondent M/s. Picket & Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam herein is collecting amounts contrary to the terms of lease agreement and entering into an agreement for construction of function hall by APTDC with M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd., is an illegality committed by APTDC and thereby, caused substantial loss to the public at large and such injury cannot be compensated except by taking necessary action against APTDC and 9th respondents/M/s. Picket & Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam. 17. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also drawn attention to contents of various documents, more particularly, the original lease agreement between the Executive Officer-cum-Assistant Commissioner or Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Arasavalli Village and APTDC dated 8.2.2012. The Service Agreement between APTDC & 9th respondent/M/s. Picket & Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam, for operation and maintenance of hotel at Arasavelli, and the notice issued by Gram Panchayat to stop construction of convention hall/function hall in the premises leased out by Executive Officer of the Temple to APTDC without sanction plan and requested to issue a direction as claimed in the petition. 18. Whereas, learned Counsel for the 4th respondent/Devasthanam directly supported the case of APTDC/9th respondent, admitting allotment of land on lease basis to APTDC by the temple authorities for running Budget Hotel and construction of function hall, while stating that it is an integral part of the Budget Hotel for the benefit of pilgrims and the same stand was taken by the 9th respondent. 19. 19. Sri K. Laitha, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments/4th respondent/Devasthanam contended that, in view of the Service Agreement signed between APTDC and M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. for Operation & Maintenance of Hotel at Arasavelli, 9th respondent/M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd., is competent to construct a function hall directly in terms of the agreement and that, it is not in violation of the terms of lease. 20. Whereas, Sri P. Roy Reedy, learned Counsel for the 9th respondent admitted about entering into Service Agreement between APTDC and M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd., for Operation & Maintenance of Hotel at Arasavelli and construction of the function hall. But, seriously contended that the function hall is for a the benefit of the pilgrims who are celebrating certain functions at the temple town, but not for on individual benefit and therefore, the public interest litigation is not maintainable against the 9th respondent and the petition was filed only to harass the 9th respondent in a vindictive manner and with a mala fide intention by suppressing the real fact, which prima facie disentitled the petitioner to the claim in the pro bono litigation and prayed to dismiss the petition. 21. It is an undisputed fact that, Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Arasavalli is the owner of land of an extent of Acs. 2-68 cents in Sy. No. 12/1 situated at Arasavalli Village, Srikakulam District and the then Government made a proposal to construct T.T.D. Kalyana Mandapam to an extent of Ac. 1-20 cents in temple land and remaining land admeasuring Ac. 1-48 cents was allotted to Budget Hotel which is under direct control of APTDC. The dispute is not pertaining to construction or Kalyanamandapam by T.T.D, but it is purely between APTDC and respondents 5, 6, 7 and 9. As they allegedly violated the terms of original lease deed dated 8.2.2012 and Proceedings No. L1/38197/2010 dated 16.11.2010. 4th respondent/Devasthanam entered into contract with APTDC for construction of hotel with restaurant and for Operation and Maintenance of a Hotel at Arasavelli. 22. The scope of writ petition is limited, in view of the contention urged before this Court which are enumerated in the earlier paragraphs and not in dispute, except grant of lease for contraction of function hall. 23. The 2nd respondent/Commissioner of Endowments Department vide his proceedings No. L1/38197/2010 dated 16.11.2010 has allotted an extent of Ac. 22. The scope of writ petition is limited, in view of the contention urged before this Court which are enumerated in the earlier paragraphs and not in dispute, except grant of lease for contraction of function hall. 23. The 2nd respondent/Commissioner of Endowments Department vide his proceedings No. L1/38197/2010 dated 16.11.2010 has allotted an extent of Ac. 1-20 cents of land in Sy. No. 12/1 to APTDC, Government of Andhra Pradesh on lease basis on payment of Rs. 3,22,344/- per annum for a period of 5 years with a condition that the lease amount shall be enhanced by 5% every year on the existing rate of lease amount. The lease deed was entered into by the 4th respondent on 8.2.2012 with APTDC with certain conditions. The terms and conditions with regard to payment of lease amount are irrelevant for deciding the real controversy. But, the purpose of lease is germane for deciding the real controversy between the parties. 24. The first paragraph of the lease deed dated 8.2.2012 speaks about purpose of lease as follows: "That the lessee has approached the Commissioner (Endts) Hyderabad for allotment of Ac. 1-48 cents of land in Sy. No. 12-1 situated at Arasavalli Village of Srikakulam Mandal and District "for the purpose of building a hotel" with restaurant for the benefit of pilgrims/devotees visiting the temple and with a view to promote tourism in the vicinity of holy place." 25. Clauses 12 and 13 of the Lease Deed dated 8.2.2012 are also relevant for the purpose of deciding the real controversy in the present writ petition. Therefore, we find opposite to extract the same for better appreciation of the case and accordingly, it is extracted hereunder: "12. The lessee shall construct Hotel & Restaurant Building, at his own cost as per the plan approved by the concerned Gram Panchayat and the lessee shall alone is responsible to pay the property tax in respect of the Hotel & Restaurant building made in the said premises. 13. The lessee shall not utilize the premises for any other purpose other than the proposed construction." 26. 13. The lessee shall not utilize the premises for any other purpose other than the proposed construction." 26. In view of the terms and conditions of lease extracted above, the 4th respondent entered into lease with Divisional Manager, APTDC, Visakhapatnam, and the lease was only for the purpose of building a hotel with restaurant for the benefit of pilgrims/devotees visiting Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Arasavalli Village, but not for any other purpose like construction of function hall. 27. In pursuance of the lease obtained by the 7th respondent/Divisional Manager APTDC, Visakhapatnam from the 4th respondent/Devasthanam for construction of hotel with restaurant for the benefit of pilgrims/devotees, in terms of lease deed dated 8.2.2012, invited tenders and in pursuance of the tender notification, M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd., filed its tender and the tender of M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd., was accepted by APTDC, for operation and maintenance of the hotel & restaurant at Arasavelli. APTDC entered into service agreement with M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd., for operation and maintenance or hotel with restaurant at Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Arasavalli Village. 28. The relevant terms contained in the service agreement are as follows and they are extracted hereunder "5.2 Obligations of the Operator during Implementation Period (a) Within 6 months AUTHORITY handing over the Project to the Operator, the Operator will complete the construction of function hall, interior, exteriors, fittings, landscaping and furnishings etc., for the entire property, listed at Schedule C and make the Project operational. If the Operator fails to make the project operational within 6 months, the Minimum assured Annual Revenue Share will still become payable from the date of scheduled COD, or after 6 months of AUTHORTY handing over the Project to the Operator whichever is earlier. (b)......(not relevant) 7.1 Development Obligations of Operator The Operator shall construct function hall, other facilities in the premises of the property towards provision of additional services to the tourists. (b)......(not relevant) 7.1 Development Obligations of Operator The Operator shall construct function hall, other facilities in the premises of the property towards provision of additional services to the tourists. The Operator shall in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Agreement, undertake or manage, inter alia, the following activities; (a) Preparation of the DPR and the Designs and Drawings; (b) Arranging the financing for the Project, including mobilization of debt and equity; (c) Procurement of Applicable Permits for commencing and implementing the Projects; (d) Execution of Project Contracts in respect of engineering, procurement, construction, management, Operation/or and Maintenance of Project/Project Assets. (e) Strict and Timely implementation of the Project in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, including the Specifications and Standards, the Applicable Laws, the terms of the Applicable Permits and Good Industry Practice. (f) Compliance with and implementation of the Environment Management Plan; (g) Compliance with the provisions of this Agreement relating to liability and indemnification; (h) Implementation of measures for safety, security and protection of the works, property, life and materials at the Site and the environment. 29. The Service Agreement dated 6.6.2017 between APTDC and M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and the terms and conditions contained in it are not in dispute. A bare look at the terms of the lease dated 8.2.2015 between 4th respondent/Devasthanam and 7th respondent/Divisional Manager, APTDC, Visakhapatnam is only for limited purpose i.e., for construction of hotel with restaurant for the benefit of pilgrims/devotees visiting the temple. Whereas, on 6.6.2017 APTDC, Vijayawada/7th respondent entered into a service agreement with M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd., for Operation and Maintenance of Hotel at Arasavalli, Srikakulam District. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents 2, 4, 5 to 7 and 9 is that, construction of a function hall is an integral part of a hotel and in fact, the terms in Lease Deed dated 8.2.2012 are specific that the property was leased out to APTDC by Executive Officer, Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Arasavalli Village only for the purpose of construction of hotel with restaurant for the benefit of pilgrims and there is a specific prohibition to use the land for any other purpose. The hotel was constructed and it was in operation for the last many years prior to entering into an agreement between APTDC and M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 30. The hotel was constructed and it was in operation for the last many years prior to entering into an agreement between APTDC and M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 30. At this stage, it is relevant to discuss the essentials to constitute 'hotel' 'hotel with restaurant' and 'function hall'. Hotel means a commercial establishment providing lodging, meals, and other guest services. In general, to be called a hotel, an establishment must have a minimum of six letting bedrooms, atleast three of which must have attached private bathroom facilities. Function Hall means a function hall, reception hall, or banquet hall is a room or building for the purpose of hosting a party, banquet, wedding or other reception, or other social event. Function halls are often found within pubs, dubs, hotels, or restaurants. Restaurant is a place where people pay to sit and eat meals that are cooked and served on the premises. Hotel with Restaurant means a commercial establishment providing lodging with bedrooms and also a place where people pay to sit and eat meals that are cooked and served on the premises. 31. In view of the subtle difference between 'hotel', 'restaurant' and 'function hall' and 'Hotel with Restaurant' it is difficult to hold that the hotel includes function hall which is a separate building. 32. Coming to the specific covenants in lease agreement, the lease was only for construction of hotel with restaurant. Apart from that, the agreement between APTDC and M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd., is clear that the hotel with restaurant was already constructed and agreement was entered into only for Operation and Maintenance, construction of a building to locate a function hall after obtaining permission from the concerned Gram Panchayat duly signed by paying Rs. 8,01,262/- to Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, after obtaining permit. It shows that APTDC started construction of the building only by obtaining permission on payment of requisite fee on 13.8.2018 i.e., almost after expiry of lease period. Therefore, a Budget Hotel with restaurant was already constructed and proposed, construction of function hall entering into an agreement with M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd., is a clear violation of covenants in the Lease Deed on 8.2.2012 executed by the 4th respondent/Devasthanam in favour of APTDC/7th respondent. Therefore, a Budget Hotel with restaurant was already constructed and proposed, construction of function hall entering into an agreement with M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd., is a clear violation of covenants in the Lease Deed on 8.2.2012 executed by the 4th respondent/Devasthanam in favour of APTDC/7th respondent. Hence, we hold that the function hall is not an integral part of hotel with restaurant, such construction of function hall is in clear violation of covenants of lease deed. 33. The petitioners resorted to this pro bono litigation i.e., public interest litigation questioning the inaction on the part of respondents 2 and 4 for failure to cancel the lease between the Executive Officer, Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Arasavalli Village and APTDC for construction and running Budget Hotel with restaurant. The public injury complained is not specific in the petition. Paragraph No. 5 of the affidavit alongwith the petition is relevant for deciding public injury and it is extracted hereunder: Nature and extent of injury caused/apprehended The construction of the Convention Hall is carried by the 9th respondent in the place of Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Arasavalli and on the said Illegal construction the respondents herein are not taking action against the 9th respondent and on its impact, damage on the society at an enormous magnitude. 34. This part of allegation does not show directly any damage, much less, substantial damage or injury to the public at large for the reason that, on account of construction of function hall in terms of Service Agreement dated 6.6.2017 by 9th respondent on behalf of APTDC, it would not cause any injury to the public, but effects the income from the property to the temple. But, that injury is remote. In any view of the matter, the jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts can be invoked for good governance. One extreme of governance condemns the State's discretionary control of citizen's dealings and transactions as inherently arbitrary. The other view favours consolidation and concentration of power and authority in such institutions which would lay down the limits of their own authority. In any view of the matter, the jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts can be invoked for good governance. One extreme of governance condemns the State's discretionary control of citizen's dealings and transactions as inherently arbitrary. The other view favours consolidation and concentration of power and authority in such institutions which would lay down the limits of their own authority. Since the 4th respondent/Devasthanam, which is the State instrumentality failed to take action for violation of terms of lease, which is extended later for a period of 11 years by issuing memo, in such case, this Court being the Constitutional Court can entertain such public interest litigation, questioning the lethargic attitude of the 4th respondent. 35. The State and its instrumentalities are expected to act within its limits of law and trust, realizing the constitutional directives and obligations which are subject to scrutiny at the hands of citizens. The 'State' for the purpose of Public Interest Litigation, may mean an action by a body, or instrumentality having a certain nexus or connection with the State, which is in infringement of rights of citizens, groups or classes of them. In Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, 2003 (1) ALD 40 (SC) : (2002) 5 SCC 111 , the Supreme Court held that the question in each case would be whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a State within Article 12 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, when the control is merely regularly whether under statute or omerwise, it would not serve to make body a State. 36. If, this principle is applied to the present facts of the case, Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Arasavalli Village, which is under the direct control of its Executive Officer, who is in the cadre of Deputy Commissioner, but not merely a regulating authority, is a State. Therefore, failure to take necessary action would fall within in action and such inaction is arbitrary for different reasons. 37. The Court may consider good governance to permit litigation in public interest in the following and similar circumstances, treating them as instances of failures of good governance. Therefore, failure to take necessary action would fall within in action and such inaction is arbitrary for different reasons. 37. The Court may consider good governance to permit litigation in public interest in the following and similar circumstances, treating them as instances of failures of good governance. (1) Non-implementation, or non-enforcement of law per se (e.g., by not extending the law, or not taking up measures for effectuating the law such as non-framing of subordinate legislation; not setting up or inadequate setting up of dispute resolution bodies; not taking mandatory measures under the law or lack or proper supervision or control, leading to injury or damage to a class, section or groups of citizens. (2) What would be similar circumstances for this section may deserve close and careful scrutiny in order that matters not fit or amenable to judicial scrutiny are eschewed. (3) Where a law confers new set of rights or expands existing set of rights, the remedial processes for resolution of disputes under the said law are also provided for. In all such cases the existing jurisdiction of Civil Courts may stand bared or excluded. Lack of adequate provision for dispute resolutions under such legislations would be a clear case of impinging upon administration of justice. (4) When the law provides for the taking of steps or measures for effective implementation of the legislation, or even for the application of the legislation, absence of such measures may also be constitutional wrongs involving Article 14 dimensions. These can be subjected to correction by judicial scrutiny. The Courts may also issue appropriate writs or orders to enforce statutory duties, towards ensuring actual implementation of the law of the Constitution. This is different from the rule that no orders will be issued to the Government for enforcement of an Act or for bringing certain provisions into force. (5) Imposition of restrictions or burdens in the pursuit of, or in accessing the remedial measures under the law may also impede administration of justice. (6) The Constitution may also treat certain governmental action as infringements of Article 14 or 21, as the case may be, when the inadequacy in the establishment of dispute resolution institutions or bodies affects access to justice. This would be so, as mere enactment of legislation without enabling access to justice fully and effectively, will be considered opposed to public interest. This would be so, as mere enactment of legislation without enabling access to justice fully and effectively, will be considered opposed to public interest. (7) The Civil Court or other remedy, where shown to be inefficacious or otherwise unsuited for quick resolution and also having regard to the nature of the factual and legal issues involved, access to Superior Courts will be granted in public interest. (8) Sometimes the very foundation of liability may entail intricate questions of law, interpretation of statutes or even constitutional dimensions. Courts may consider it appropriate to permit litigations in public interest in these instances towards securing discharge of statutory functions, enacted towards mattes such as health, safety, ecology or education, as the case may be. Statutes may impose mandatory functions calling for action by quick dispatch even obligations which may be director, may call for exercise of due discretion, and of supervision or control on the due discharge of such functions. An immediate illustration would be municipal functions, some of them being mandatory and some directory. Failure to ensure safety in an unmanned railway level crossings may involve loss of life and limb. Similarly, provision and maintenance of electrical facilities may warrant due care. Negligence in these matters, though treated as torts, can be subjected to judicial scrutiny as mattes of public interest. 38. It is clear that, inaction on the part of the Government instrumentality also falls within the deficiency of good governance and take action as per law, which is the basic feature of the Constitution. When there is a lapse in good governance, and it relates to the rights enshrined in the Constitution, this Court can exercise such power and issue necessary direction by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, though no specific direct public injury is shown. In view of the scope of jurisdiction of this Court discussed above, it is necessary to advert to the consequences of construction of function hall. The 4th respondent executed a lease deed in favour of APTDC/7th respondent for construction of a hotel with restaurant for the benefit of pilgrims in an extent of Ac. 1-48 cents in RS No. 12/1. But, to make out a financial going to APTDC, for one reason or the other, entered into a service agreement with M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd., for Operation and Maintenance of Budget Hotel and restaurant. 39. 1-48 cents in RS No. 12/1. But, to make out a financial going to APTDC, for one reason or the other, entered into a service agreement with M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd., for Operation and Maintenance of Budget Hotel and restaurant. 39. According to Cambridge dictionary, lodging is defined as a room in someone's house that you pay money to live in. The service agreement must be limited to such hotel, but not for function hall, its construction and maintenance. Construction of function hall, which is not an integral part of hotel with restaurant, may be another source of income to APTDC or to M/s. Picket and Bhaskar Hotels Pvt. Ltd., but loss to Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Arasavalli Village. Such loss may directly have an impact on the facilities being provided to the pilgrims. Therefore, there is a direct injury to the public who are the pilgrims of Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Arasavalli Village. 40. This Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in pro bono litigation, may issue necessary directions to compensate the loss caused to the temple. Demolition of function hall constructed by APTDC in the site is in utter violation of the covenants of the lease, which may result in substantial loss to APTDC, which is a State instrumentality, being a Government Corporation. If, existence is allowed to continue, directing it to pay certain amount to the temple, by way of compensation every year, it would benefit not only the devotees/pilgrims, but also the temple. Therefore, to avoid unnecessary substantial loss to APTDC, we find that it is a fit case to direct the 4th respondent/Devasthanam to get lease amount payable for the function hall be determined Independently, through Roads & Buildings Department, Srikakulam, within three months. On assessment of the lease amount for the function hall, the APTDC is directed to pay the lease amount as fixed by the Road, & Building, Department every year, which would be beneficial to the pilgrims/devotee, who are visiting the temple. 41. On assessment of the lease amount for the function hall, the APTDC is directed to pay the lease amount as fixed by the Road, & Building, Department every year, which would be beneficial to the pilgrims/devotee, who are visiting the temple. 41. In view of our foregoing discussion, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 4th respondent/Devasthanam to get the lease amount payable for the function hall be determined independently through Roads & Buildings Department, Srikakulam, within three months and on such determination, the 7th respondent shall pay the same to the 4th respondent every year in addition to the lease amount agreed and a copy of the report be furnished to the petitioners within one month from the date of such assessment by registered post with acknowledgment due. 42. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.