IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 875 of 2007 Between: 1.P.V.Venkatesh, s/o P.V.Jaganath, Shop No.1, Kothacheruvu, Ananthapur(Dt) 2.G.Susheela, w/o G.Sreenivasulu, Shop No.2, Kothacheruvu, Ananthapur(Dist) 3. P.V.Jayanth, s/o Venganna, Shop No.20, Kothacheruvu, Ananthapur District. 4. P.V.Gopal, s/o P.V.Venkatramanappa, Shop No.21, Kothacheruvu, Ananthapur 5.P.S.Vengappa, s/o Chandrappa, Shop No.14, H.No.5-212, Kammapalem, Ananthapur District. 6.T.Narayanamma, w/o Ullakki, Shop No.8, Kammapalem, Ananthapur District. 7.A.Pedavenkatesu, s/o Chinnarappa, Shop No.6, H.No.5-75, Kammapalem, Ananthapur District. 8.G.Sreenivasulu, s/o Thimmappa, shop No.7, Tippappalpalli, kothacheruvu Ananthapur District. 9.C.Sreenivasulu, s/o Venkata Ramudu, Shop No.12, H.No.5-473, Kammapalem, Kottacheruvu, ananthapur District. 10. T.Chennakeshavulu, s/o Ullakki, Shop No.13, Kammapalem, Kottacheruvu, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 District Panchayat Officer, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 2 The Panchayat Secretary, Kottacheruvu Gram panchayat, Kottacheruvu, Ananthapur District, represented by its Panchayat Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in cancelling the lease and dispossess the petitioners in midterm for the shop No's 1,2, 20, 21, 14, 8, 6, 7, 12 & 13 Kothacheruvu Grampanchayath, Ananthapur District as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents not to cancel the lease or not dispossess for the shop No's 1, 2, 20, 21, 14, 8, 6, 7, 12 & 13 Kothacheruvu Grampanchayath, Ananthapur District and to pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.JYOTHI ESWAR GOGINENI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT. The Court made the following : W.P.No.875 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to cancel the lease and dispossess the petitioners in midterm from the shop Nos.1, 2, 20, 21, 14, 8, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of Kothacheruvu Grampanchayat, Anantapur District, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to cancel the lease and dispossess the petitioners from the shops in question. The petitioners are the highest bidders in the auction conducted by the Gram Panchayat, Kothacheruvu, on 03.06.2006 and accordingly the shops in question were given to them for a period of three years. Even before the expiry of the said period of three years, the Gram Panchayat in its meeting held on 22.12.2006 decided to cancel the said lease and a resolution to that effect was also passed. It appears a copy of the resolution was forwarded to the District Collector, Anantapur, pursuant to which the District Collector, Anantapur, by order dated 24.07.2007 directed the Panchayat Secretary to hold a fresh auction for the shops which were on lease to the petitioners. At that juncture the petitioners approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development filed a detailed counter-affidavit contending that the auction conducted by the then Panchayat Secretary itself is contrary to the terms of the G.O.Ms.No.496, Panchayat Raj, dated 11.06.1966 as according to the said G.O. any lease is only for a period of one year and the then Panchayat Secretary has no power to lease out any premises beyond one year. It is further contended that the petitioners are defaulters in payment of rents and further they are sub-letting the shops in question. Heard both sides. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the lease for three years was granted to the petitioners by the then panchayat secretary as per the resolution passed by the panchayat and there was nothing wrong in leasing out the said shops in favour of the petitioners. He also contends that the District Collector ordered fresh auction by a letter, dated 24.07.2007, which is violative of principles of natural justice, as the petitioners were not put on notice before canceling the existing lease in favour of the petitioners. It is also contended by him that the District Collector has no power to cancel the resolution passed by the panchayat and it is only the Government, which is competent to cancel any resolution under Section 246 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for both sides and also going through the relevant provision of law, this Court is of the view that granting of lease for a period of three years by the then Grama Panchayat Secretary is definitely contrary to the spirit of the G.O.Ms.No.496. Further the said cancellation order passed by the District Collector on 24.07.2007 is also bad in law in view of the fact that Section 246 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act empowers the Government alone to cancel or suspend any resolution of a Grama Panchayat, Mandal Parishad or a Zilla Parishad. According to sub Section (3) of the said Section if the District Collector feels that immediate action is necessary to suspend a resolution, he may make a report to the Government and the Government may, by order in writing, suspend the resolution. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the fact that the petitioners are innocent and they shall not suffer because of the lapse committed by the authorities, I deem it appropriate to direct the District Collector, Anantapur, to consider the case of the petitioners provided the petitioners approach him and give a representation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The District Collector may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and if he comes to a conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled for extension of lease, he may proceed with the auction of the shops in question. It is needless to observe that the Collector before passing the orders on the said representation shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as to the Grama Panchayat so that both the parties can ventilate their grievances. The entire exercise shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a representation from the petitioners. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. ____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 11-04-2008 Gsn.