R. Raghunandan Rao, J.:— The petitioner had been the successful bidder in the auction conducted for grant of licence for collecting human hair offered by the devotees of the 3 respondent-temple for the years 2019-20 to 2020-21. As the 3 respondent-temple had been closed, for some time, during these two years, on account of the covid pandemic, there was no collection of human hair on account of the said closure. The petitioner had made a representation to the 3 respondent for extension of lease period from 01.04.2021 to 31.8.2021, to compensate for the period of closure. Pursuant to the recommendations of the 3 respondent, the licence period was extended from 01.04.2021 to 26.08.2021, by the 2 respondent by Memo Rc. No. D2/14025(34)/50/2021, dated 02.08.2021.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he could not obtain any benefit from the said extension of licence period as the Kalyanakatta of the 3 respondent-temple was closed from 10.05.2021 to 06.07.2021 and there was very low attendance at the temple and offering of hair by the devotees due to the continuation of Covid-19 pandemic. The petitioner, on that count, submitted representations to the 3 respondent-temple on 29.07.2021 and 26.08.2021 for extension of lease period by nine months. After receiving these representations, the 3 respondent is said to have forwarded the said representations through letter bearing Rc. No. C2/14/2019, dated 26.08.2021 to the 2 respondent recommending extension of licence period for four months from 27.08.2021 to 26.12.2021. The 2 respondent is said to have rejected the request of the petitioner through Memo bearing Rc. No. D2/14025(34)/50/2021, dated 30.11.2021 without considering the recommendation of the 3 respondent. Thereafter, the 3 respondent invited tenders for collection of human hair by way of the impugned notification Rc. No. C2/4155/2021, dated 30.11.2021. This notification stated that the successful bidder would be granted a licence for a period of two years from the date of handing over of Kalyanakatta.
3. Aggrieved by the said memo of the 2 respondent dated 30.11.2021 and the notification issued by the 3 respondent for fresh auction, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.
4. This Court, on 16.12.2021, by way of an interim order, directed that the tender process should be completed after 26.12.2021 and the hair collected for the period from 26.08.2021 to 26.12.2021 would be preserved and abide by the result of the writ petitioner.
5. It is now submitted that a new licensee has taken charge and the hair collected from 26.08.2021 to 26.12.2021 remains in the custody of the 3 respondent-temple.
6. The 3 respondent had filed a counter affidavit, essentially, setting out the same facts. No counter has been received on behalf of the 2 respondent.
7. As can be seen from the record, the initial extension of licence was for a period of four months. This extension was accepted by the petitioner as adequate. In the circumstances, the earlier period of closure does not come into play.
8. As far as the period between 01.04.2021 to 26.08.2021 is concerned, it is stated that Kalyanakatta was closed from 10.05.2021 to 06.07.2021. This would mean that the period which needs to be taken into account is roughly two months. However, the petitioner is seeking extension of four months again.
9. The endowments authorities, on account of the Covid-19 pandemic, by way of Memos and Circulars have taken a view that the lessees and licensees of various religious endowments and temples, who could not conduct their business on account of closure of temples should be granted extension of licence for the period of closure only.
10. The impugned Memo of refusal also states that there was a categorical order from the Government for extension of lease/licence period only for the period of stoppage of Darshan. After having recorded this direction of the Government, the 2 respondent simply states hat the request of the 3 respondent for further extension of licence period is hereby rejected. Having observed that extension of lease/licence is permissible for the period of stoppage of Darshan, the 2 respondent ought to have applied the same principle for the closure of Kalyanakatta also, which occurred admittedly between 10.05.2021 to 06.07.2021.
11. However, the fact that Kalyanakatta was closed only for a period of two months has to be taken into account and the request of the petitioner for extension of licence period for a further period of four months cannot obviously be accepted. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the 2 respondent is required to be set aside with extension of lease for the petitioner for a period of two months.
12. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:—
1. The memo No. Rc. No. D2/14025(34)/50/2021, dated 30.11.2021 is set aside.
2. The petitioner is entitled for collection of two months of the hair collected and preserved by the 3 respondent.
3. The 3 respondent shall divide the entire hair collected by the 3 respondent from 26.08.2021 to 26.12.2021, and preserved by the 3 Respondent, into two equal parts.
4. The 3 respondent, after dividing the hair into two equal parts, shall handover one part to the petitioner.
5. The said hair will be handed over to the petitioner only after the 3 respondent is satisfied that the petitioner has paid the entire licence amount payable for the period 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2021. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.