THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 11144 of 2009 Date : 07.09.2009 Between: Vadlapatla Krishna Mohan …Petitioner And The Eluru Municipal Corporation, Rep., by its Commissioner Eluru, West Godavari District. …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. V.Srinivasa Rao Counsel for the respondent : S.Nageswara Reddy, Standing counsel for Municipal Corporation.66 THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.11144 OF 2009 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the respondent – Eluru Municipal Corporation – dated 3.6.2009 as arbitrary and illegal. It is not in dispute that the respondent Municipal Corporation published a Tender-cum-Auction Notice for grant of right to collect the market Aasil for the year 2008-09 and the petitioner having participated in the auction was declared as the successful bidder. Accordingly, he was granted authorization for collection of the market Aasil for the period from 4.8.2008 to 3.8.2009 in respect of five market places namely Main Market, Adivarapupet Market, Sri Naraharisetti Suryanarayana Municipal Market, Milk and Curd at Peruguchettu and Sri Laveti Appala Swamy Market being maintained by the respondent Corporation. Aggrieved by the subsequent proceedings of the Corporation dated 12.11.2008 thereby the petitioner permitting to collect Aasil from the Lorries, Vans and Autos which enter the Municipal Corporation, Eluru Fertilizers & Pesticides Association filed W.P.No.26390 of 2008. This Court by order dated 23.12.2008 in WPMP.No.34553 of 2008 granted interim suspension of the said proceedings dated 12.11.2008 was suspended until further orders. It is pleaded by the petitioner that since the members of the said association stopped paying Aasil to the petitioner so far as their vehicles are concerned, he had suffered heavy loss to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- per month. That apart, under the guise of the said interim order, some other business men carrying business in the markets also evaded payment of Aasil to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petitioner made an application dated 22.03.2009 for grant of remission. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent to consider his request, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6868 of 2009. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 1.4.2009 with a direction to the respondent Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.3.2009 for grant of remission and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks. In spite of the said order, the petitioner’s representation has not been considered, but on the other hand the Corporation by order date 3.6.2009 cancelled the petitioner’s authorization on the ground that he had failed to remit the monthly installments payable to the Corporation out of the market Aasil collected by him. The said order dated 3.6.2009 is questioned in this Writ Petition contending inter alia that the impugned cancellation without any prior notice to the petitioner and particularly without considering his representation in terms of the order of this Court in W.P.No.6868 of 2009 is arbitrary and illegal. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation, while denying the allegation that there was no prior notice it is stated that though the Corporation issued notice dated 25.2.2009 the petitioner evaded receipt of the same. It is further stated that by the end of February, 2009 the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.7,57,500/- apart from interest payable thereupon at the rate of Rs.2.50 ps per month and therefore the impugned order of cancellation has been rightly passed. The plea of the petitioner that he made a request for remission dated 22.3.2009 has also been denied and it is stated that no such representation is received in the office of the Corporation. It is further stated that the Corporation has been colleting market Aasil through the Department from 4.6.2009 and even the tenure of the petitioner came to an end by 3.8.2009. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Grant of Remission to Contractors and Leases of Municipal Councils) Rules, 1965 (for short, ‘the Rules’) deal with grant of remission. Rule 3 of the said Rules provides that remission shall be granted only in cases in which the lessee or contractor is prevented from carrying out his part of the leases or contract by reason of the occurrence of some extraordinary event which could not have reasonably been anticipated. As per the proviso to Rule 3 if the remission exceeds Rs.5,000/- the prior sanction of the Government shall be obtained. Having regard to the above said statutory rules, it is for the respondent Corporation to consider the request of the petitioner for remission in the light of the said Rules and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as directed by this Court in W.P.No.6868 of 2009. Even assuming that the petitioner had committed default in remitting the amounts payable to the Corporation, the cancellation of authorization can be resorted to only after due notice to the petitioner. Since nothing could be placed before this Court to show that such prior notice was issued to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 3.6.2009 being in violation of the principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. However, admittedly the petitioner’s term of authorization came to an end by 3.8.2009. Therefore this order shall not be understood to have conferred any right upon the petitioner to continue and it is open to the Corporation to grant fresh authorization following due process of law. Similarly, it is open to both the parties to work out the appropriate remedy available under law for recovery of the amounts, if any due to them. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Date07.09.2009 gbs