ORDER : 1. One who seeks equity must do equity. A person who comes to the Court to seek equity should come with clean hands. 2. The above writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “… to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 6th respondent in conducting tender cum open auction in respect of S.No.267, Ac.3.53 cents and S.No.282/1, Ac.5.80 cents, total Ac.9.33 cents (but on ground Ac.8.33 cents) of Bhimadole village and Mandal, Eluru District belongs to 6th respondent Choultry during subsistence of lease period of petitioner till 21.06.2024, is illegal, arbitrary, without following due process of law, principles of natural justice, apart from violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to stay all further proceedings dated 26.06.2023 issued by 6th respondent for tender cum open auction in respect of S.No.267, Ac.3.53 cents and S.No.282/1, Ac.5.80 cents, total Ac.9.33 cents (but on ground Ac.8.33 cents) of Bhimadole village and Mandal, Eluru District … …” 3.... (a) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that petitioner is successful bidder in the auction held on 21.06.2021, conducted by 6th respondent for a period of 3 years i.e. from 2021-22 to 2023-24, for cultivating the lands on leasehold of an extent of Ac.3.53 cents in S.No.267 and Ac.5.80 cents in S.No.282/1 belonged to 6th respondent. The lease amount is Rs.1,32,500/- per crop. Lease was confirmed by 4th respondent-Deputy Commissioner on 06.07.2021. At the time of handing over possession of land, it was not surveyed. Subsequently, it was found that Ac.1.00 cents is less in extent and the same was brought to the notice of 6th respondent. Petitioner also submitted written representation dated 29.08.2022. (b) The 6th respondent issued notice dated 05.05.2023 demanding the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,45,000/- as arrears, otherwise auction will be conducted as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”) and the Rules made thereunder. Petitioner submitted reply/representation dated 23.06.2023. The 6th respondent issued tender-cum-auction notice dated 26.06.2023 to conduct public auction on 29.06.2023, however none participated. With the above averments, the writ petition is filed. 4. Petitioner submitted reply/representation dated 23.06.2023. The 6th respondent issued tender-cum-auction notice dated 26.06.2023 to conduct public auction on 29.06.2023, however none participated. With the above averments, the writ petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri Babuji Tenneti, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1, 2, 4, 5 & 7 and Smt.Pulipati Radhika, learned standing counsel for 6th respondent. 5. On 07.07.2023, mention was made to take up the writ petition by way of lunch motion. Learned standing counsel submitted that auction was conducted and the bid was knocked down for Rs.1,35,000/- and the lessee paid the advance. Hence, the matter was adjourned to 12.07.2023 to produce the record. Accordingly, learned standing counsel produced the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the auction conducted on 21.06.2021, for a period of three years, petitioner emerged as the highest bidder. Subsistence of lease, conducting auction by 6th respondent is illegal and arbitrary. He would also submit that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before terminating the lease. He would submit that the extent of property mentioned in the auction notice is less on ground and without considering the petitioner’s representation, 6th respondent proceeded with auction and thus, prayed to set aside the auction. 7. Learned standing counsel for 6th respondent, on the other hand, would submit that petitioner failed to pay Maktha amount and hence, notice was issued on 05.05.2023 stating that in case, petitioner fails to pay the amount, lease will be cancelled, and the authorities will proceed with the auction. However, he failed to respond to it. Further submitted that from the beginning the petitioner is not paying the amount regularly and 6th respondent issued number of notices and thus, there are no merits in the writ petition. 8. It is an undisputed fact that 6th respondent conducted auction on 21.06.2021 for a period of 3 years i.e. from 2021- 22 to 2023-24 in respect of Ac.3.53 cents in S.No.267 and Ac.5.80 cents in S.No.282/1, totaling Ac.9.33 cents. The land is situated in Bhimadole village, where petitioner has been residing. Petitioner emerged as the highest bidder for Rs.1,32,000/- per crop. The purpose of conducting public auction is to get more income. 9. As can be seen from the record, 6th respondent issued notice to petitioner on 11.02.2022 demanding him to pay maktha amount. The land is situated in Bhimadole village, where petitioner has been residing. Petitioner emerged as the highest bidder for Rs.1,32,000/- per crop. The purpose of conducting public auction is to get more income. 9. As can be seen from the record, 6th respondent issued notice to petitioner on 11.02.2022 demanding him to pay maktha amount. Similar notice was issued in respect of Dalwa crop. The petitioner, as per the terms and conditions of auction must pay maktha by end of January and April. However, the petitioner could not pay the maktha and hence, notice dated 08.07.2022 was issued to petitioner. Another notice dated 25.08.2022 was issued to petitioner calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.1,32,500/- with interest. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 29.08.2022 stating that Ac.1.00 cent is less on ground and Ac.1.00 cents of land is in low lying and the neighboring residents let out sewage water into the fields and thus, to consider his case. 10. The 6th respondent issued notice dated 06.09.2022 indicating to the petitioner about conditions 18, 21 and 22 and further directed him to pay the amount. Petitioner paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 26.09.2022 and Rs.20,000/- on 30.09.2022. The petitioner stated that as his wife suffered with illness, he could not pay the amount immediately and, assured to pay the remaining amount of Rs.62,500/- within 20 days. The 6th respondent issued notice dated 04.02.2023 demanding the petitioner to pay Rs.1,32,500/- due by January, 2023 along with balance of Rs.12,500/-, total amount of Rs.1,45,000/-. Another notice dated 14.03.2023 was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner received the same, however, no reply was submitted by him. Petitioner harvested the second crop. Another notice dated 21.04.2023 was issued directing the petitioner to pay the amount. The petitioner sent a representation dated 27.04.2023 claiming that extent of land is only Ac.8.33 cents and Ac.1.00 cents is low lying and requested to receive maktha for Ac.8.33 cents only. 11. Petitioner without paying maktha for first crop of 2022- 23, raised the second crop and harvested the same. Having harvested the crop, the petitioner failed to pay maktha for second crop i.e. Rs.1,32,500/- as per the terms and conditions. Thus, the total arrears accumulated to a tune of Rs.1,45,000/-. The notice dated 05.05.2023 would indicate that if the petitioner failed to pay the amount, the authorities will invoke Condition No.14 and auction will be conducted afresh. Having harvested the crop, the petitioner failed to pay maktha for second crop i.e. Rs.1,32,500/- as per the terms and conditions. Thus, the total arrears accumulated to a tune of Rs.1,45,000/-. The notice dated 05.05.2023 would indicate that if the petitioner failed to pay the amount, the authorities will invoke Condition No.14 and auction will be conducted afresh. 6th Respondent also addressed letters dated 15.05.2023 to the Tahsildar, Bhimadole marking copy to the Village Revenue Officer, requesting to deduct an amount of Rs.2,77,500/- out of the amount payable to the petitioner. 12. Since the petitioner committed default, 6th respondent invoked Condition No.14 and sought permission from the 5th respondent to instruct the Endowments Inspector to conduct fresh auction on 29.06.2023 at 11.00 a.m. However, since the Government declared 29.06.2023 as a holiday, permission was obtained to conduct auction on 07.07.2023. Pamphlets were published as per Rules and auction was conducted. The auction was knocked down for Rs.1,45,000/- per crop. 13. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner that no notice was issued to the petitioner before conducting auction falls to ground, for the reason that notice dated 05.05.2023 was issued to the petitioner by 6th respondent. In the notice, it was mentioned about terms and conditions, especially condition No.14 and also condition Nos.18, 21 and 22. Condition No.14 would indicate that in case if the lessee violated the terms and conditions, the authority could forfeit the earnest money and without issuing any notice, cancel the lease and, proceed with action of lease hold rights. Condition No.18 contemplates that the lessee has to get the land repaired. Condition No.21 contemplated that lessee cannot dispute about the extent of land. As per Condition No.22, lessee has to pay the maktha as agreed and he cannot claim any loss of crop due to any natural calamities. 14. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner did not mention in the affidavit the amount payable to the institution. The petitioner is aware of the due, however for the reasons best known did not disclose the said fact. 15. Notice dated 05.05.2023 would indicate that the petitioner has to pay Rs.12,500/- for the year 2021-22 and Rs.1,32,500/- for Sarwa crop of 2022-23 payable by January, 2023. The petitioner is aware of the due, however for the reasons best known did not disclose the said fact. 15. Notice dated 05.05.2023 would indicate that the petitioner has to pay Rs.12,500/- for the year 2021-22 and Rs.1,32,500/- for Sarwa crop of 2022-23 payable by January, 2023. The demands, made by 6th respondent, prior to notice dated 05.05.2023, by various notices would indicate that 6th respondent has been issuing notices to petitioner demanding him to pay the Maktha amount. As per the record, it seems that petitioner paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, out of Ac.2,77,500/- on 17.06.2023. The petitioner is still due Rs.1,77,500/-. Since the petitioner failed to pay the amount, an auction notice was issued as per G.O.Ms.No.379 dated 11.03.2003 and G.O.Ms.No.425 dated 09.11.2015. Initially, the authorities intended to conduct auction on 29.06.2023 and since 29-6-2023 was declared holiday, the auction was conducted on 07.07.2023 by following due procedure. 16. Thus, the petitioner is aware of the auction to be conducted on 07.07.2023. Pamphlets were published on 26.06.2023, however, the petitioner waited till the last minute and approached this Court on 07.07.2023 and moved the writ petition by way of lunch motion. 17. Regarding extent of land, petitioner cannot dispute same after the lease was confirmed. Petitioner participated in public auction and emerged as the highest bidder. In the pamphlet/auction notice the extent of property was mentioned. Petitioner is resident of the same village, where the lands are situated. After harvesting crop, at the time of payment of maktha, petitioner started disputing the extent of land etc. The conduct of the petitioner in disputing the extent of land and not paying the maktha, disentitles him from getting equitable relief from this Court. The petitioner shall pay maktha as per the terms and conditions, however as observed supra, petitioner failed to pay maktha amount for Sarwa crop 2022-23 and another amount of Rs.12,500/-. Petitioner failed to pay maktha for Dalwa crop 2022-23 by the end of April, 2023. Later, he paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 17.06.2023. Thus, the above instances make the things more than discernible that petitioner is committed default in payment maktha. Still petitioner has to pay an amount of Rs.1,77,500/-. 18. During the arguments, learned counsel for petitioner would contend that petitioner is ready to pay maktha, if time is granted and thus prayed to stall the auction. Thus, the above instances make the things more than discernible that petitioner is committed default in payment maktha. Still petitioner has to pay an amount of Rs.1,77,500/-. 18. During the arguments, learned counsel for petitioner would contend that petitioner is ready to pay maktha, if time is granted and thus prayed to stall the auction. However, as seen from the discussion, the petitioner is disputing the extent of land and further pleaded about low lying. When the petitioner has to pay the maktha as per the terms and conditions, failure on the part of the petitioner to pay maktha in the opinion of this Court, petitioner does not get the benefit of extension of time to pay maktha that too, when another auction was conducted. 19. Notice dated 05.05.2023 issued to the petitioner is clear that if the petitioner fails to pay the maktha amount, 6th respondent will proceed with auction. Thus, the petitioner is made aware of the auction by issuing notice. No separate notice is required. The petitioner is aware of the terms and conditions as also the consequences. Condition No.14 is clear qua failure to pay the maktha and its consequences. Condition No.21 is clear that lessee cannot dispute regarding extent of land. 20. As seen from the material papers, petitioner after harvesting the crop, sold the paddy, as per the present procedure, and realized an amount of Rs.6,40,000/-. However, the petitioner made a representation dated 23.06.2023 to 6th respondent about lesser extent and low lying area and further pleaded that he suffered loss of Rs.1,86,000/-. Condition No. 14 is explicit regarding payment and failure to pay maktha, conducting fresh auction without notice. Notice dated 05.05.2023, in the opinion of this Court is sufficient and petitioner cannot complain about non-issuance of another notice. By making a representation dated 23.06.2023, the petitioner is aware that if he fails to pay the maktha, the authorities will proceed with the auction. The notice dated 05.05.2023 is not surprise to the petitioner. 21. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner that conducting of auction during the subsistence of lease is violation of right to life, will not apply to the facts of the case. The principle laid down by the Apex Court in Olga Tellis and Others vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others, (1985) 3 SCC 545 will not apply to the facts of this case. The principle laid down by the Apex Court in Olga Tellis and Others vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others, (1985) 3 SCC 545 will not apply to the facts of this case. The lessee having committed default in payment of maktha, cannot complain that 6th respondent is not entitled to conduct auction. 22. In view of discussion supra, this Court does not find any merits in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 23. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.