ORDER : Sri. Bhramarambika Mallikarjuna Swamy Varla Devasthanams, Srisailam (hereinafter referred to as the 2nd respondent temple) is a well known and famous shrine dedicated to Lord Shiva and Devi Bhramarambika. This Temple attracts devotees from all over India and even abroad. 2. It is an admitted fact, on all sides, that there has been a manifold increase in the number of devotees visiting the 2nd respondent temple. This has caused overcrowding and congestion in and around the Temple area. The streets laid out earlier are unable to cater to the rush of devotees. The problem gets even more aggravated during the festivals, especially during the Shivaratri period. It is also an admitted fact that there is every danger of the physical safety of devotees being affected on account of overcrowding and the huge press of people during the time when the procession of the deities is taken through these streets. 3. The 2nd respondent-temple, having realised the pressing need for a drastic overhaul of the entire area around the temple, had come up with the proposal, of decongesting the streets around the temple area, by widening the main streets and by opening spaces around the Temple. This required the removal of a large number of structures. However, the bottle neck for these plans, are the structures which are in the possession of the existing tenants on 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. These structures are lining the main streets and the said streets cannot be widened unless these structures are demolished. To do that, the existing tenants need to move out of the structures. The 2nd Respondent having realised that evicting these tenants would be a time consuming process, had come up with a scheme to persuade the existing tenants to hand over the possession of these structures at the earliest. 4. The scheme formulated by the 2nd Respondent temple required the construction of a commercial complex to which all the existing tenants could be moved by offering them leases of the shops in the newly constructed complex at very attractive rents. 4. The scheme formulated by the 2nd Respondent temple required the construction of a commercial complex to which all the existing tenants could be moved by offering them leases of the shops in the newly constructed complex at very attractive rents. Accordingly the temple authorities had negotiated with the existing tenants, who agreed to hand 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 existing tenants, who are giving 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 Sft. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 6. 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 existing tenants, by way of W.P.No.4037 of 2019 and W.P.No.4414 of 2019. 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 existing tenants, 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 was challenged by 30 successful bidders in W.P.No.15516 of 2019 and 12 unsuccessful bidders in W.P.No.18744 of 2019. 7. 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. 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. 8. These writ petitions had been disposed of by this court, by an order dated 21.10.2021, with certain directions. Subsequently, review applications had been filed on two grounds. The first set of review applications were on the ground that, this court had proceeded on the basis that the tenants who had agreed to give up their shops and godowns had already been dispossessed from their shops, when the fact was that they were still in possession of these shops and godowns. The second issue raised in the other review application was that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had stayed the operation of the judgment of this court in W.P.No.40252 of 2015 and batch which was dismissed on 27.09.2019 and that there was a further direction that non-Hindus cannot be prohibited from participating in such auctions. This Court by an order dated 08.02.2022, had allowed the review petitions and set aside the order dated 21.10.2021. Thereafter, the matters were heard afresh. 9. A conspectus of the above facts would show that there are three broad lines of litigation in the present set of matters. In the first line of litigation, the existing tenants were seeking allotment of shops in view of the assurances given to them. 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. 10. 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. 10. The two issues, that had come up, earlier, for consideration before this court was whether the existing tenants who had earlier agreed to be 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 or 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. 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. 12. The question of the entitlement of the existing tenants, to the shops in the Lalithambika Complex, remains. The very purpose for which the Lalithambika complex has been built is to accommodate and rehabilitate the existing tenants, so as to improve the surroundings of the Temple and to decongest the streets around the 2nd respondent temple. In that view of the matter, non consideration of the existing tenants, would make the construction of the Lalithambika Complex, an exercise in futility. Therefore, the existing tenants need to be accommodated in this Complex. 13. 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. 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. 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. On the other hand, there are 170 existing tenants who are claiming a prior right to be allotted these shops. 14. This issue, of adjudication of the inter se rights of these two groups does not remain, on account of the submissions made by the 2nd Respondent temple, that all the parties to the present litigation can be accommodated. The executive officer of the 2nd respondent temple has filed an additional affidavit, dated 18.02.20222, stating that the 2nd respondent temple proposes to construct another 36 shops to ensure that all these persons can be accommodated. The 2nd respondent offers the following details as to how all these persons can be accommodated. Number of shops existing presently in Sri Lalithambika Shopping Complex 203 LESS : Shops Reserved for Chenchus Tribals 30 LESS : Shops that can be allotted to existing sitting tenants. 170 Existing Shops Remaining 03 ADD : Proposed construction of New Shops – (Construction will be completed within 3 months) 36 LESS : Highest Bidders of Public Auction i.e., Petitioners in W.P.Nos.15516, 18744 of 2019 (30+12) = 42-5 who were identified as existing Tenants. 37 Total – Shops that would remain 02 15. However, the issue of fair rent to be fixed for the existing tenants remains. The existing tenants themselves, in the earlier round of hearing of these cases had fairly conceded that rent of Rs. 20/- per square feet per month is very much on the lower side and the rent needs to be refixed. This Court, in the judgment dated 21.10.2021 had directed the refixation of rent. The existing tenants themselves, in the earlier round of hearing of these cases had fairly conceded that rent of Rs. 20/- per square feet per month is very much on the lower side and the rent needs to be refixed. This Court, in the judgment dated 21.10.2021 had directed the refixation of rent. On the basis of the earlier orders of this Court, the respondent-temple, in consultation with, and after obtaining approval of the Commissioner, Endowments, has fixed a certain fair rent, which would be collected from the existing tenants, who were giving up their shops and godowns. In the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for some of the tenants, who were giving up their shops and godowns in the writ petitions covered under this order as well as in other cases, have contended that the fair rent fixed in this process is not beneficial to the existing tenants and that a large number of them are not interested in moving to the Lalithambika Complex. They are seeking a review of the rent fixed by the 2nd respondent temple. 16. As noticed above, the entire exercise commenced with the idea of moving the existing tenants out of their present premises. Fixation of a rent which is unattractive to the existing tenants, would defeat the very purpose for which the Complex had been constructed. The Temple can definitely raise more funds and obtain a greater income by keeping the rents high. However, the congestion in the area and the problems attached to such congestion would remain. In the short term, the temple would be losing revenue. However, in the long term, the temple would have solved the problem of the existing tenants refusing to vacate their premises and also ensure decongestion and beautification of Srisailam, which would be much more beneficial to the 2nd respondent temple in the long run. 17. The 2nd respondent would need to take a pragmatic view of the whole issue and fix the rents in such a manner as to make it attractive to the existing tenants to move into the Lalithambika Complex. However, this would also not mean that the 2nd respondent has to accept whatever is offered by the existing tenants. A balance would have to be struck between offering an attractive rent and protecting the income of the 2nd respondent. 18. However, this would also not mean that the 2nd respondent has to accept whatever is offered by the existing tenants. A balance would have to be struck between offering an attractive rent and protecting the income of the 2nd respondent. 18. It would be open to the 2nd respondent-temple, in consultation with the Commissioner, Endowments, to have a re-look at the rents being offered to these tenants and to ensure that the rents fixed for these shops will be appropriate for attracting the existing tenants to vacate and hand over their premises to the 2nd respondent-temple at the earliest. 19. 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 2nd respondent-temple shall complete the construction of the additional 36 shops within a period of three months from today, and thereafter, take up the allotment of shops to the tenants, who are willing to vacate their existing premises in the manner mentioned. C. 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, and the requirement of getting the existing tenants to shift to this complex, shall fix a fair rent for the shops in Lalithambika Shopping Complex. D. After fixation of fair rent and after all the 36 shops which are proposed to be constructed have been constructed and are ready for occupation, the Executive officer shall call upon the existing tenants of the 156 shops/ canteens/ structures and the 14 Godowns on Rathashala Post office road and Patalganga Road, 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. It shall also be open to the 5 existing tenants, who are also petitioners in W.P.No.No.15516 of 2019 and W.P.No.18744 of 2019, to either opt for the shops they would be allotted as successful bidders in the auction or to give willingness to pay the rent fixed by the 2nd respondent and accept the shops that may be allotted to them in the draw. E. The existing tenants, who give their willingness to take the shops, on the rent offered by the 2nd Respondent temple, shall be put in a list for the purposes of conducting a draw. F. The petitioners in W.P.No.15516 of 2019 and W.P.No.18744 of 2019 shall be offered the shops for which they had given their offers in the auction conducted on 16.08.2019 to 18.08.2019. They shall be given one week’s time to accept the said shops at the rates they had quoted. G. The 2nd Respondent shall, after ascertaining the responses of the Petitioners in W.P. No.15516 of 2019 and W.P.No.18744 of 2019 finalise the list of the shops that are being allotted to the petitioners in No.15516 of 2019 and W.P.No.18744 of 2019. H. After finalising the above lists, the 2nd respondent shall prepare the list of shops which are available for allotment to the existing tenants and conduct a draw for the allotment of these shops to the existing tenants, who have given their willingness to pay the rent fixed by the 2nd respondent. I. The existing tenants shall be given possession of the shops which are allotted to them, in accordance with the Rules, only after they hand over vacant possession of the structure/premises which are in their possession to the 2nd respondent. J. All 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. K. 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. L. All Non Hindus who are either existing tenants or the petitioners in W.P. No.15516 of 2019 and W.P.No.18744 of 2019, shall be permitted to participate in the process. However, any allotment made to these persons shall abide by the result of SLP.(c).No.1989 of 2020 and C.C.No.881 of 2021. L. All Non Hindus who are either existing tenants or the petitioners in W.P. No.15516 of 2019 and W.P.No.18744 of 2019, shall be permitted to participate in the process. However, any allotment made to these persons shall abide by the result of SLP.(c).No.1989 of 2020 and C.C.No.881 of 2021. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.