ORDER : 1. At the outset, this Court is compelled to mention the figure of Rs. 10,70,05,600/-. This was the loss caused to Sri. Bhramarambika Mallikarjuna Swamy Varla Devasthanams, Srisailam, on account of the pendency of the present batch of cases. It is obvious that any continuation of this litigation would result in further loss pegged at Rs. 41,15,600/- per month. In the circumstances, with a view to protect the interest of the temple and the petitioners before this Court, all the writ petitions are being taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Sri. Bhramarambika Mallikarjuna Swamy Varla Devasthanams, Srisailam is a well known and famous shrine dedicated to Lord Shiva and Devi Bhramarambika. A master plan was formulated with a view to improve the area around the Temple. This master plan required the authorities to remove a large number of structures around the temple and it’s surroundings. For this purpose, the Temple authorities to obviate litigation, had negotiated with the persons in possession of these structures and obtained their consent for vacating these structures on the understanding that they would be rehabilitated. In this process the persons in possession of the shops and establishments of certain areas, had handed over the possession of their shops and establishments to the temple authorities and had been accommodated in a complex known as “Siddaramappa Shopping Complex.” 3. The temple authorities, in a similar manner, had taken up the removal of various shops and establishments in the Rathasala Post Office Road and the Patalaganga Road. It was found that there were 156 shops/plots/canteens and 14 godowns aggregating to 170 structures, which were required to be removed. Accordingly the temple authorities had negotiated with the persons in possession of these structures, who voluntarily handed over the said structures to the temple authorities on the understanding that they would be rehabilitated by allotment of shops on lease basis in the complex that was to be constructed in the name of “Lalithambika Shopping Complex.” The Executive Officer of the temple had addressed a communication bearing Rc. No. C2/4820/2018, dated 26.11.2018 to the Commissioner, Endowments Department, setting out the above facts and requesting permission for allotment of 170 shops, on lease basis, in favour of the persons, who have given up the aforesaid 170 structures for a period of 11 years with increase in rents every three years. No. C2/4820/2018, dated 26.11.2018 to the Commissioner, Endowments Department, setting out the above facts and requesting permission for allotment of 170 shops, on lease basis, in favour of the persons, who have given up the aforesaid 170 structures for a period of 11 years with increase in rents every three years. The Commissioner, Endowments, by proceedings in D. Dis. No. D2/14025(34)/42/2018, dated 07.02.2019 had accorded permission to lease out 170 shops to the existing tenants in the newly constructed Lalithambika Shopping Complex subject to the following guidelines: (a) Selection of shops by lottery for 170 shops to the 170 sitting tenants who lost their shops at Radhasala Post Office Road and Pathalaganga Road for the purpose of allotment of shop Nos. (b) Price is fixed as Rs. 20/- per Shift. (c) Lease period is fixed as 3 years. (d) Remaining 23 shops are leased out in public auction duly following the rules in vogue. (e) Other conditions stipulated by the EO in earlier lease orders shall also be incorporated in the present lease orders. 4. It appears that the executive officer had sent a communication dated 09.02.2019 seeking permission to auction the shops as the rent of Rs. 20/- per sq. feet fixed by the Commissioner was on the lower side. Be that as it may, the general public are said to have been informed that there would be a dip system undertaken, on 13.02.2019, for allotment of the shops, which would be handed over on 15.02.2019. 5. At that stage, some persons interested in participating in a public auction, of the lease hold rights of these shops, had filed W.P. No. 1727 of 2019 for a direction that the shops cannot be allotted on private negotiation basis and a public auction should be conducted for such shops. This Court by an order dated 15.02.2019 had directed that the respondents should not allot shops in Lalithambika Shopping Complex, Srisailam except by way of conducting public auction of the leasehold rights. Thereafter, an auction notice dated 18.03.2019 was issued for conducting public auction of the leasehold rights in these shops on 01.04.2019. This notice was challenged by the tenants, who had been displaced by way of W.P. No. 4037 of 2019 and W.P. No. 4414 of l2019. In these writ petitions, this Court had directed that the auction could go on but that it should not be finalised. This notice was challenged by the tenants, who had been displaced by way of W.P. No. 4037 of 2019 and W.P. No. 4414 of l2019. In these writ petitions, this Court had directed that the auction could go on but that it should not be finalised. However, this auction was not conducted on 01.04.2019 and a fresh auction was proposed to be conducted on 24.05.2019. This fresh auction was again challenged by the tenants, who had been displaced, by way of W.P. No. 5599 of 2019. This Court by an order dated 24.05.2019 had permitted the auction to go on but directed that the auction should not be finalised. No auction was conducted on this day also. Subsequently, a partial auction was conducted on 30.05.2019, which was dropped and finally an auction was called for on 12.08.2019 and actually conducted on 16.08.2019 to 18.08.2019. In this auction, 134 bidders were found to be the highest bidders and proposals were sent for confirming the said auction. At that stage, the Commissioner, Endowments by his proceedings in Rc. No. D2/14025 (34)/18/2019, dated 26.09.2019 cancelled the auction that is said to have been held on 16.08.2019/18.08.2019 in relation to 134 shops. This order of cancellation were challenged by 30 successful bidders in W.P. No. 15516 of 2019 and 12 unsuccessful bidders in W.P. No. 18744 of 2019. 6. In addition to the writ petitions mentioned above, there was a parallel challenge to all these proceedings. In all these auctions a note was added prohibiting persons professing other than Hindu religion from participating in the said auction. This condition was challenged by way of various writ petitions including W.P. No. 40252 of 2015 and batch which was dismissed on 27.09.2019 and W.P. No. 6722 of 2019 which was disposed of by order dated 29.05.2019. This court, in those decisions had held that non-Hindus cannot participate in the auction of the leasehold rights of the shops and they cannot be allotted any shops. 7. A conspectus of the above facts would show that there were three broad lines of litigation in the present set of matters. In the first line of litigation, the lessees who had been displaced were seeking allotment of shops in view of the assurances given to them when they voluntarily handed over the shops and structures in their possession on the Rathasala Post Office Road and the Patalaganga Road. In the first line of litigation, the lessees who had been displaced were seeking allotment of shops in view of the assurances given to them when they voluntarily handed over the shops and structures in their possession on the Rathasala Post Office Road and the Patalaganga Road. In the second line of litigation, the persons desirous of obtaining leases of the shops in Lalithambika Shopping Complex had sought directions from this Court for conduct of a public auction of the leasehold rights and for setting aside the order of cancellation of the Auction process conducted on 16/18.08.2019. The third line of litigation was by non-Hindu lessees/persons, who were desirous of participating in the auction and obtaining leasehold rights of shops. 8. The total number of shops available in Lalithambika Shopping Complex are 203 shops out of which 30 shops are earmarked for the people belonging to Chenchu Tribal Community. Thus 173 shops are available for auction/allotment. The bids of 134 persons were found acceptable by the Executive Officer of the temple, and sent for confirmation for allotment of shops on leasehold basis. This would leave 39 shops for which there were no bidders. 9. Upon the order of cancellation being passed by the Commissioner, Endowments on 26.09.2019, thirty of the bidders, whose bids had been sent for confirmation, had challenged the said order of cancellation by way of W.P. No. 15516 of 2019. Similarly another 12 bidders had challenged the orders of cancellation in W.P. No. 18744 of 2019. Thus only 42 bidders out of 134 bidders have chosen to approach this Court for setting aside the order of cancellation passed by the Commissioner. This would mean that even if the said writ petitions are allowed only 42 persons would have to be accommodated in the 173 shops that are available. 10. The two issues before this Court are – whether the tenants who had earlier been displaced on the assurance given by the temple authorities are entitled for allotment of shops on a leasehold basis at the rate of Rs. 20/- fixed by the Commissioner, Endowments in his proceedings dated 07.02.2019 and whether the bids of the Petitioners in W.P. No. 15516 of 2019 and W.P. No. 18744 of 2019 have to be accepted and the order of cancellation of the said auction requires to be set aside? 11. 20/- fixed by the Commissioner, Endowments in his proceedings dated 07.02.2019 and whether the bids of the Petitioners in W.P. No. 15516 of 2019 and W.P. No. 18744 of 2019 have to be accepted and the order of cancellation of the said auction requires to be set aside? 11. In view of the fact that the tenants, who have been displaced had voluntarily handed over their shops and structures on the assurances given by the temple authorities, it would not be open to the said authorities to turn around and claim that the said allotment of shops to the tenants who have been displaced is not permissible and that the leasehold rights of such shops should be given only on the basis of a public auction. It may also be noticed, that the allotment of these shops to the tenants who have been displaced are only for a period of three years and on payment of rent of Rs. 20/- per sq. feet per month. A perusal of the bids tendered by the successful bidders in the auction held on 16.08.2019 to 18.08.2019 reveals that most of the bids were in the range of Rs. 150/- to Rs. 285/- per sq. feet per month. This would mean that the rent of Rs. 20/- per sq. feet fixed by the Commissioner, Endowments, is extremely low. In fact, the Tenants, who had been displaced, had fairly offered in their writ petition, that a rent of Rs. 50 to Rs. 100 per square feet per month would be a reasonable rent. The communication of the executive officer of the Temple, dated 09.02.2019, requesting for permission to conduct public auction of the leasehold rights of these shops on the ground that the rent, of Rs. 20/- per sq. ft. fixed by the Commissioner, Endowments was too low would also have to be taken into account. 12. As far as the successful bidders in the auction held on 16.08.2019 are concerned, the order of cancellation of the Commissioner is on the ground that a tender-cum-public auction should have been conducted according to the rules, whereas only a public auction was conducted and the said auction need to be set aside on that ground. The reasons given by the Commissioner for such cancellation do not appear to be reasonable grounds, which are sufficient for such a cancellation of the auction. 13. The reasons given by the Commissioner for such cancellation do not appear to be reasonable grounds, which are sufficient for such a cancellation of the auction. 13. However, three factors have to be noted at this stage. Firstly, out of the 134 bidders whose bids were sent for confirmation, only 42 bidders have challenged the order of cancellation. As the remaining 92 bidders have no complaint against the order of cancellation and have not challenged it, only the case of the 42 bidders, who have challenged the order of cancellation, need be considered. The second factor that needs to be recognised is that no bidder gets a vested right to be allotted shops merely on the ground that the said bidder is the highest bidder. Such a vested right would only accrue upon confirmation of the auction bid and not earlier. In the present case, the said auction bid had not been confirmed. Thirdly, the claims of the successful bidders cannot be decided in a vacuum and the rights of the tenants who have been displaced would also have to be taken into account and balanced. These persons had voluntarily given up their shops on the basis of the assurance given by the Temple authorities. They would be entitled to be rehabilitated in the new shopping complex for some period before they can be asked to compete with the rest of the bidders in any fresh auction. The Commissioner Endowments, in his proceedings of 07.02.2019 had acknowledged this fact and directed the Executive officer to allot shops, on leasehold basis, for a period of three years which is an equitable period. In view of these proceedings, the interests of the Petitioners in W.P. No. 15516 of 2019 and W.P. No. 18744 of 2019 would have to give way to the right of the displaced tenants to be rehabilitated. 14. Even though, the bids of the 42 petitioners in W.P. No. 15516 of 2019 and W.P. No. 18744 of 2019 could be rejected on the ground that they had no vested right, it would be appropriate to allow these petitioners to be allotted shops in accordance with the bids offered by them, subject to availability of the said shops. 14. Even though, the bids of the 42 petitioners in W.P. No. 15516 of 2019 and W.P. No. 18744 of 2019 could be rejected on the ground that they had no vested right, it would be appropriate to allow these petitioners to be allotted shops in accordance with the bids offered by them, subject to availability of the said shops. This view is being taken on account of the huge loss that the temple has already suffered and an early closure of the entire litigation is necessary to ensure that the income of the temple is not affected any further. 15. In the light of the above, these writ petitions are being disposed of with the following directions: (a) The proceedings of the Commissioner Endowments in Rc. No. D2/14025(34)/18/2019, dated 26.09.2019 cancelling the auction of the Leasehold rights of the 134 shops, in Lalithambika Shopping Complex, held on 16.08.2019/18.08.2019 are set aside only to the extent of the Petitioners in W.P. No. 15516 of 2019 and W.P. No. 18744 of 2019. (b) The Executive Officer of the Temple, subject to the approval of the Commissioner, Endowments, after taking into account the location and size of the shops, shall fix a fair rent for the shops in Lalithambika Shopping Complex, within three weeks from today. (c) After fixation of fair rent, the Executive officer shall call upon the displaced tenants who were earlier in the 156 shops/canteens/structures and the 14 Godowns on Rathashala Post office road and Patalganga Road, except persons who do not profess the Hindu faith, to give their willingness to pay the rents fixed by the Executive Officer within two weeks of the notice being given to the said tenants. (d) The Executive Officer of the temple, after the expiry of the two weeks period shall enumerate all the tenants who have given their willingness to pay the rents fixed by the Executive officer and the shops that would still be available to accommodate the petitioners in W.P. No. 15516 of 2019 and W.P. No. 18744 of 2019, within three days after the expiry of the said two weeks period. (e) The Executive officer shall prepare a list of the petitioners in W.P. No. 15516 of 2019 and W.P. No. 18744 of 2019, in descending order of the rents offered by them. (e) The Executive officer shall prepare a list of the petitioners in W.P. No. 15516 of 2019 and W.P. No. 18744 of 2019, in descending order of the rents offered by them. That is the petitioner who has offered the highest per square feet rent would be placed first, with the petitioner who has offered the second highest per square feet rent at the second place and so on and so forth. (f) The Executive Officer shall, then offer the shops for which the petitioners in W.P. No. 15516 of 2019 and W.P. No. 18744 of 2019, had bid, in descending order, to the extent of the shops that are available after taking into account the number of displaced tenants who have agreed to pay the rent fixed by the executive officer of the Temple. To obviate any misunderstanding an example is set out: If only 150 displaced tenants accept the rent fixed by the Executive officer, there would 23 shops available for allotment to the petitioners in W.P. No. 15516 of 2019 and W.P. No. 18744 of 2019. These twenty three shops are to be offered to the first twenty three petitioners in descending order. The said persons shall be offered the specific shop for which they had given their bids. If the first person in the list of petitioners had bid for Shop No. A, he shall be offered Shop No. A, for which he had submitted his specific Bid, at the rent he had offered. (g) The petitioners who have been offered these shops shall be given one week to pay the said annual rent for the first year and shall be put in possession of the shop thereafter. In the event of default by any of the Petitioners, the Executive officer shall fill up such vacancies by making the same offer to the remaining petitioners according to the order of precedence with one week’s time given to such Petitioners to pay the annual rent and so on. (h) After these vacancies have been filled or the list of Petitioners is exhausted, the Executive officer shall conduct a lottery for allotment of the remaining shops to the displaced tenants, and allot the same to these Tenants, subject to payment of the rent for the first year, within such time that the Executive officer may fix. (h) After these vacancies have been filled or the list of Petitioners is exhausted, the Executive officer shall conduct a lottery for allotment of the remaining shops to the displaced tenants, and allot the same to these Tenants, subject to payment of the rent for the first year, within such time that the Executive officer may fix. (i) The said leases granted by the Executive officer shall be for a period of three years, commencing from the time the persons are put in possession of the shops. (j) If any shops are still available after the above exercise, the lease hold rights of such shops shall also be auctioned, in accordance with the Rules governing such auctions. 16. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.