- (1.)THE writ petitioner was a highest bidder in respect of having a vehicle stand in the property belonging to the third respondent temple in S.No.14/1, Villapuram, Madurai District for the year 2007-2008. It is not in dispute that in the tender which was held on 03.05.2007 in respect of 20 items including the vehicle stand, the petitioner was given contract which expires on 30.06.2008. As submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, the said tender itself was given with many conditions which includes condition 19 which makes it clear that the right to conduct the vehicle stand is for the period from 01.07.2007 to 30.06.2008 and after expiry of that on 01.07.2008 the entire right in respect of the right to conduct the vehicle stand shall vest with the temple since the property belongs to the temple and it is also stated that under no circumstances any extension of period shall be granted to the licensee. It is accepting the said condition, the petitioner has become the licensee under the third respondent and conducted the business for the said period upto 30.06.2008.
(2.)THE grievance of the petitioner is that for the year 2008-2009, the third respondent has issued tender notification in respect of all other items on 07.05.2008 except regarding the vehicle stand situated in S.No.14/1, Villapuram, Madurai District. According to him, the conduct of the third respondent in leaving out the said portion of the tender alone is arbitrary in the sense that as a person who has been already running the vehicle stand as a licensee under the third respondent he has the right of participation in the tender for the next year namely 2008-2009.
Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent on instructions would submit that it is true that the third respondent has issued tender notice in respect of all other items except running the vehicle stand in S.No.14/1, Villapuram, Madurai District. The case of the third respondent is that the said property was originally agricultural field and there were large number of encroachments and it was in those circumstances, the encroachments were removed and after removal of encroachments for the year 2007-2008, it was decided for the purpose of running a vehicle stand only so as to augment income to the third respondent temple. However, it is based on that policy of the third respondent temple, the tender was called for in respect of it in S.No.14/1, Villapuram, Madurai District and petitioner was also the highest bidder in the tender for the year 2007-2008 and after paying necessary charges he was permitted to run it upto 30.06.2008. But as per the terms and conditions of the said contract, the petitioner is bound to return the property on 30.06.2008 and he is not entitled for continuation of lease beyond the said period. It is also further stated that for the subsequent period namely 2008-2009, the third respondent has taken a policy decision that not to have a vehicle stand in S.No.14/1, Villapuram, Madurai District and therefore, the petitioner's right to continue to be in possession comes to an end.

Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would also submit that the writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued against the Governmental agency which has no statutory obligation to perform something. In the present case, in fact, the petitioner seeks a direction to be given to the third respondent to issue tender notice in respect of a property which the third respondent has decided not to issue tender. Therefore, there is no legal obligation on the part of the third respondent to issue the tender for vehicle stand in the land in S.No.14/1, Villapuram, Madurai District.

(3.)HE would rely upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and another Vs. S.B. Vohra and others reported in 2004 (1) CTC 217 and the decision of the First Bench of this Court in L. Boomiraja Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul District reported in 2005(3) L.W.91.
On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that inasmuch as for the removal of the encroachments, the petitioner has spent huge amount for enabling the property to conduct the vehicle stand and therefore, the temple is bound to give concession to the petitioner.