ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed seeking to declare notice vide No. 1/2019 dated 10-08-2020 issued by the Executive Officer of respondent No. 4 directing the petitioner to vacate the leasehold fish tank in an extent of Ac. 5.12 cents in R.S. No. 192/1 and Ac. 2.96 cents in R.S. No. 192/2 in Bethapudi Village, Bheemavaram. Mandal, West Godavari District and the notification dated 25-08-2020 to conduct' auction on 08-09-2020 in respect of the fish tank referred to above as illegal. 2. No counter is filed but both learned counsel agreed for disposal of the matter on hearing merits. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and learned standing counsel for respondent No. 4. 4. The petitioner is a holder of lease rights on the subject fish tank. Having been declared as the highest bidder, the tank was handed over to him. He paid part of the bid amount and ready to pay the remaining amount. The lease is valid till 30-06-2021. While so, respondent No. 4, before expiry of the said period, intended to conduct public auction on 06-07-2020. A legal notice was got issued by the petitioner on 06-07-2020, for which a reply was issued by respondent No. 4 on 21-07-2020 stating that respondent No. 3 did not approve the auction held on 13-06-2018 since the bid is low and thereby cancelled the auction. It was also stated in the reply notice that the petitioner is continuing in the subject tank unauthorizedly and hence, he is a trespasser as per Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner was neither informed nor communicated with the order of respondent No. 3 qua disapproving the public auction conducted on 13-06-2018. It is only through the reply notice dated 21-07-2020 that the petitioner was informed about the auction. The date of proceedings of respondent No. 3 is also not mentioned. The said order was not communicated to the petitioner along with the reply. It is only through the reply notice dated 21-07-2020 that the petitioner was informed about the auction. The date of proceedings of respondent No. 3 is also not mentioned. The said order was not communicated to the petitioner along with the reply. As per Rule 16 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short ‘2003 Rules’) if no orders are received from the competent authority within 30 days from the date of receipt of the lease report by him, the lease shall be deemed to have been approved. In the instant case, though the auction was conducted on 13-06-2018, the orders of respondent No. 3 disapproving the auction were not communicated so far, implying deemed approval. Hence, the impugned notice of auction needs to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, relies on Rule 16 (3) of 2003 Rules which is as under: “If no orders either approving or rejecting the lease are received from the competent authority within 30 days from the date of receipt of the lease report by him, the lease shall be deemed to have been approved.” The impugned notice; dated 10-08-2020 spells that a public auction was conducted for the license of rear fish for a period of three years starting from 01-07-2018 and ending by 30-06-2021, however subject to approval of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada. The fact remains that the petitioner was handed over possession of the auctioned tank and has been rearing fish in the said tank. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner has paid the bid amount for the three years but now the notice states that the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, has vetoed the said auction on the ground that the said bid is not fair and reasonable when compared to the prevailing market values. It also states that there is no lease in favour of the petitioner and that he is continuing in the subject tank unauthorizedly. No date of vetoing by the Deputy Commissioner is mentioned in the notice and as to how the bid is not fair and as to what were the prevailing market rates as on the date of auction is also not mentioned in the reply notice. 6. No date of vetoing by the Deputy Commissioner is mentioned in the notice and as to how the bid is not fair and as to what were the prevailing market rates as on the date of auction is also not mentioned in the reply notice. 6. Learned Government Pleader, by contending that fish tank does not come under the definition of agricultural activity, contends that 2003 Rules are not the rules that are applicable to the present case but it is the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Immovable Properties and Other Rights (Other than Agricultural Lands) Leases and Licenses Rules, 2003 (for short, 'Rules 2003), which are applicable. He contends that under Rule 12 (3) of Rules 2003, no lease or license shall be valid until it is approved by the Competent Authority. 7. Both learned counsel agree that there is no definition given for fish tank under the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Akkana Sivudu Naidu vs. Tahsildar, Bobbili, Srikakulam District, 1977 (1) ALT 539 , to contend that the order that is passed by the Deputy Commissioner has to be communicated to him before determination of his lease. In the said case, notice of cancellation of bid was affixed to the door of the petitioner's house and time was sought by the petitioner therein for giving reply. But without waiting for the reply, cancellation of bid was done which was set aside by the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh. In this case, the orders of the Deputy Commissioner vetoing the auction, in which the petitioner became the highest bidder, is not at all served on the petitioner and there is no communication whatsoever with regard to the said orders. The judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Amar Singh Harika, (1966) 2 LLJ 188 is also relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner which also upheld the principle which is laid down in Akkana Sivudu Naidu. It held that a copy of the report made against the respondent therein has to be supplied to him and hence, final order of dismissal passed against the respondent therein was set aside as having contravened the safeguards guaranteed by Section 14 (2) of the Ordinance which was relied upon in the above cited judgment. 8. It held that a copy of the report made against the respondent therein has to be supplied to him and hence, final order of dismissal passed against the respondent therein was set aside as having contravened the safeguards guaranteed by Section 14 (2) of the Ordinance which was relied upon in the above cited judgment. 8. The facts of this case would show that the petitioner was permitted to act upon the lease for more than two years without any objection. At almost the fag end of the lease, the respondents now, come with a public auction. The auction notice is also assailed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that it does not specify the period of the lease, for which the auction is proposed to be held, which, when looked into the auction notice, can be upheld as true and correct. Hence, seen from any angle, the action of the respondents in proposing to conduct fresh auction in respect of the subject tank is unreasonable and hence cannot be sustained. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the notice vide No. 1/2019 dated 10-08-2020 issued by the Executive Officer of respondent No. 4, directing the petitioner to vacate the leasehold fish tank, and the notification dated 25-08-2020 to conduct auction on 08-09-2020 in respect of the subject, fish tank. The respondents are however at liberty to go for fresh auction only after expiry of the lease of the petitioner which is undisputedly 30-06-2021. 10. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.