JUDGMENT : C. Praveen Kumar, J 1. Aggrieved by the order, dated 30-10-2019, passed in W.P.No.9144 of 2019, wherein the request of the writ petitioner/appellant herein, to declare the order passed by the Exep cutive Officer of the 1st respondent -Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Vari Devastanam in Rc.No.C2/7082/2016, dated 06.07.2019, as illegal and incorrect, was rejected, the present Writ Appeal is filed. 2. The petitioner/appellant stood as a highest bidder in a public auction held on 23.11.2017, for collecting the alankara vastrams (clothes) of the deities, namely, Mallikarjunaswamy and Bhramaramba, offered by the devotees and sell them at a stipulated place in the mada street. The lease was for a period of two years commencing from 01.12.2017. While the licence fee for the first year was fixed at Rs.81,00,000/-, the fee for the second year was at Rs.89,10,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that the said amount has to be paid in installments. The petitioner claims to have invested huge amount and started selling the clothes offered by the devotees to the deities, using his mobile van and by parking the same near the exit point of the temple (place identified by the Department). While things stood thus, the Executive Officer of the 1st respondent Devasthanam, along with Police and Revenue staff, came to the said place and demanded removal of the mobile van from the said place. Assailing the action of the Executive Officer, the petitioner/appellant preferred W.P.No.7776 of 2019 before this court, which was disposed of on 24.06.2019, directing the petitioner to submit his explanation to the notice issued and thereafter the Executive Officer was directed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law. The entire exercise was directed to be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. 3. Challenging the order passed by the Executive Officer of the 1st respondent Devasthanam thereto, on the ground that no reasonable explanation was given as to why the petitioner should not do his business from the place identified by the authorities, W.P. No.9144 of 2019 came to be filed. After hearing both sides and taking into consideration the issues involved, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition. Assailing the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed. 4. After hearing both sides and taking into consideration the issues involved, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition. Assailing the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed. 4. Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the appellant, mainly submits that the reason given by the authorities, namely, a bomb blast in Colombo and the likely eventualities, was based on assumptions, without any factual foundation. He further pleads that the appellant is having sarees worth lakhs of rupees and if he is not allowed to sell the same from the place identified by the authorities, he would be put to irreparable loss. In the alternative he pleads that the appellant may be permitted to sell the sarees at least till the stock lasts. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Endowments and the learned Standing Counsel for the Temple opposed the same contending that all the shops in the madastreet have been vacated and mobile van of the appellant cannot be an exception to the same. The reasons for eviction from the street is evident in the impugned proceedings itself and as such this court cannot sit in appeal over the reasons given therein, more particularly, the security aspect. 6. Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the appellant, in reply, would contend that as per the instructions received by him, some of the shops are allowed to run in the said street and the appellant alone was forced to remove his van. 7. Having regard to the issue raised, this court by its order dated 17.02.2020 called for a report from District Judge, Kurnool. The operative portion of the order is as under :- “In the said context, in place of adjudicating those on facts, it would be appropriate to direct that the Registry shall send the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 06.07.2019, the order passed by learned single Judge dated 30.10.2019 in W.P.No.9144 of 2019 and the affidavits and counter affidavits filed by the parties before the writ Court as well as this Court to the District Judge, Kurnool. The District Judge, Kurnool, shall conduct an enquiry on the following points : (1) Whether the mobile van of the appellant was removed after the date of order passed by the 1st respondent i.e., on 06.07.2019. (2) What is the date of removal of the encroachments on the mada streets. The District Judge, Kurnool, shall conduct an enquiry on the following points : (1) Whether the mobile van of the appellant was removed after the date of order passed by the 1st respondent i.e., on 06.07.2019. (2) What is the date of removal of the encroachments on the mada streets. (3) Whether any shops are situated on the mada streets on the date of passing the order by learned single Judge. (4) How far the pleadings in the affidavits and counter affidavits so filed by the appellant and the 1st respondent before the writ Court as well as this Court regarding removal of all the shops on mada streets, are correct. The enquiry may be assigned by the District Judge, Kurnool, to the Additional District Judge, who is having jurisdiction, but the contents of the enquiry report must be verified by the District Judge, Kurnool. Registry to do the needful within three days. Enquiry be conducted uninfluenced by any of the parties and the enquiry report be made available to this Court within one month from today. List the case for further orders after one month.” 8. On receipt of the report from the IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, the matter was listed before this Court on 01.09.2020. The counsel for both the parties wanted to go through the report and as such the Registrar (Judicial) was directed to open the sealed cover and allow both the counsel to go through the report, in his presence, within ten days. Both the counsel were also given liberty to file objections, if any, within a period of two weeks thereafter. 9. However, no objections were filed by any of the parties to the report submitted by the IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool. When the matter is taken up for hearing on 24.03.2021, Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the appellant, fairly stated that the entire case is based on the report submitted by the District Judge and as such, requests the court to pass appropriate orders basing on the said report. He, however, again pleads that some time may be given to the appellant to do business in the said premises, as otherwise, he would suffer irreparable loss. 10. As seen from the order, this Hon’ble Court directed the District Judge to conduct an enquiry on four issues. He, however, again pleads that some time may be given to the appellant to do business in the said premises, as otherwise, he would suffer irreparable loss. 10. As seen from the order, this Hon’ble Court directed the District Judge to conduct an enquiry on four issues. In so far as point No.1 is concerned, namely, as to whether the mobile van of the appellant was removed after the date of order passed by the 1st respondent i.e., on 06.07.2019, the appellant as well as the 1st respondent were examined. Basing on their statements and the material available on record, the officer came to a conclusion that mobile van of the appellant was removed after the date of order of the 1st respondent i.e., on 06.07.2019 and accordingly opined as under : “22. The 1st Respondent/Executive Officer has produced before me photo copy of panchanama dated 19.06.2019 and photo copies of Newspaper clippings of Eenadu, Saakshi and Andhra Jyothi Dailies dated 20.06.2019, which clearly disclose that the Mobile Van of the Appellant was removed from its allocated place in the Devasthanam on 19.06.2019 itself. Thereby, Mobile Van of the Appellant was removed after the date of order passed by the 1st Respondent, i.e., on 06.07.2019 does not arise. 23. But the 1st Respondent has produced photo copy of the proceedings in Rc/C2/7082/2016, dated 06.07.2019, which disclose that the 1st Respondent/Executive Officer terminated the agreement dated 18.05.2018 entered into between Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Varla Devasthanam and U.Venkata Subbaiah due to security reasons and intimated to them on 15.05.2019. 24. I submit that the above documents produced by the 1st Respondent/Executive Officer himself clearly reveal that the Mobile Van of the Appellant was removed on 19.06.2019 i.e., long prior to the date of order passed by the 1st Respondent/Executive Officer, i.e., on 06.07.2019.” 11. Coming to the second issue, namely as to the date of removal of encroachments from the Mada streets, the Enquiry Officer found that the statement of the appellant itself would demonstrate that there were no encroachments in the Mada streets, even on the date when the appellant commenced his business of selling Alankara Vastramson 24.01.2018. 12. The third issue relates to the existence of shops in the Mada streets as on the date of passing the order by the learned Single Judge. 12. The third issue relates to the existence of shops in the Mada streets as on the date of passing the order by the learned Single Judge. It was found by the Enquiry Officer that there were no shops in the Mada streets as on 13.10.2019. 13. In so far as the fourth issue, namely, as to how far the pleadings in the affidavits and counter affidavits so filed by the appellant and the 1st Respondent before the writ court as well as the appellate court regarding removal of all the shops on Mada streets, are correct, the Enquiry Officer held as under : (i) I submit that the pleading in para (6) of the affidavit of the petitioner filed before the writ Court that there are certain houses on the backside of the West Mada Street, which is correct. On which, I submit that my enquiry revealed that the 1st Respondent issued notice to the occupants of the houses on the backside of the West Mada Street on 19.07.2019 to vacate the houses, however, the occupants of the said houses have so far not vacated the houses. (ii) I submit that the pleading in para (7) of the affidavit of the petitioner filed before the writ court that abutting the Mada streets, number of shops are existing, is also correct. (iii) I submit that the pleading in para (14) of the affidavit of the petitioner filed before the writ court that except the petitioner’s mobile van, even the shops that are lying next to the mobile van are untouched, which is not correct because there are no other shops existing present or previously. (iv) I submit that my enquiry revealed that on 19.07.2019 and 25.07.2019, the 1st Respondent issued notice to the persons running the two small shops cum sheds to the further South of the Mada Street, which is not in the Mada street, to vacate the premises, however they have not vacated the shops so far. (v) I submit that the pleading in para (15) of the affidavit of the petitioner filed before the writ Court that even the open space near the Cloak Room can accommodate the mobile, is incorrect. (v) I submit that the pleading in para (15) of the affidavit of the petitioner filed before the writ Court that even the open space near the Cloak Room can accommodate the mobile, is incorrect. I have already submitted at para (16) supra that there is no sufficient place to accommodate the Mobile Van of the Appellant, which is said to be of size 8 feet x 15 feet, at the Cloak Room. (vi) I submit that the pleadings in para (16) of the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent before the writ Court that the 1st respondent has also issued notices to all the shops with a request to vacate the premises where the petitioner is carrying the business and no discrimination is shown towards the petitioner as alleged by the petitioner in this writ petition, are correct. I submit that my enquiry revealed that on 17.07.2019, the 1st Respondent issued notice to 158 persons to vacate the premises, but so far, they have not vacated the shops. (vii) I submit that the pleadings in para 18 (1) of the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent before the writ Court that the alternate sites proposed/requested by the petitioner are to be vacated very soon and notices were also served on the occupants for vacation of those places by the existing shop keepers and auction will be conducted on 12.08.2019 as per the orders of the Hon’ble A.P. High Court in Writ Petition No.1727 of 2019 and they will be removed immediately as a part of developmental activities of the temple is not totally correct. I submit that my enquiry revealed that on 17.07.2019, the 1st respondent issued notice to two persons running two shops, which were let out by the Devasthanam by conducting auction, however they have not vacated the shops. I further submit that no notices are issued so far to the persons who are running 21 temporarily arranged shops by nomination. (viii) I submit that the pleadings in para (21) of the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent before the writ Court said that as many as 158 number of shop keepers and 80 number of house dwellers were issued notices with a request to remove their houses/shops as per the instructions of the higher police authorities due to security threat perception of the Temple, which are correct. I submit that my enquiry revealed that on 17.07.2019, the 1st Respondent issued notice to 158 shop keepers to vacate the shops and on 19.07.2019, the 1st Respondent issued notice to 83 house dwellers to vacate the houses, but so far they have not vacated the shops/houses. (ix) I submit that the pleadings in para (15) of the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent before the appellate Court that no shops are existing in all the four Mada streets, are correct. I submit that my enquiry too revealed the said fact. (x) I submit that the pleadings in para (16) of the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent before the appellate Court that there are no shops around all the Mada streets and only one temporary stage is existing in the West Mada street for maintenance of Kalaradhana programs where cultural activities are being conducted daily by the Devasthanam itself and further the publication sales counter situated adjacent to West Mada Street is purely maintained by the Devasthanam, are correct. I submit that my enquiry too revealed the same facts. 14. From a reading of the above report, the allegations made in the writ affidavit and the arguments advanced in the appeal that the writ appellant has been singled out while allowing others to continue their business in the Mada streets is incorrect. In fact, a reading of the counter-affidavit and the report show removal of shops on 15.05.2019 itself, due to serial bomb blast incidents and loss of human lives in Colombo, Srilanka; security threats from religious fundamentalist and terrorist organization and their outfits; and the ensuing festivals of Sivarathri and Ugadi in the months of February and March of the said year. Since all the shop owners were directed to be vacated in the interest of security of the pilgrims and which has been done, the request of the appellant herein that termination of agreement with any valid reason cannot be accepted. 15. Even otherwise, Clauses 17 to 19 of the agreement confer power on the 1st respondent to terminate the agreement. Since all the shop owners were directed to be vacated in the interest of security of the pilgrims and which has been done, the request of the appellant herein that termination of agreement with any valid reason cannot be accepted. 15. Even otherwise, Clauses 17 to 19 of the agreement confer power on the 1st respondent to terminate the agreement. Under clause-17, the Executive Officer can cancel the licence on any ground, while Clause-18 deals with power to alter and add conditions; Clause-19 postulate that if the appellant violates any of the terms of the agreement or withdraws his licence pending the lease period, the amount paid by him till such period, will be forfeited to the Devasthanam. Hence, the reasons given for termination of the agreement and seeking vacation of the premises cannot be said to be arbitrary in nature, more so, when the writ petitioner/appellant was given a notice and only after considering the explanation offered, the order impugned in the Writ Petition came to be passed. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, we see no reason to interfere with the order impugned in the Writ Appeal. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.