THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17591 of 2010 Date:03.03.2011 Between: N. Murali and others ..... Petitioners AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its District Collector, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Smt. S.V.Bhuvaneshwari Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Counsel for Respondent No.3: None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not conducting public auction of the shop rooms of Thugundram Grampanchayat Shopping Complex, Thugundram, G.D. Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. At the hearing, there is no representation for the respondents. The petitioners are residents of Thugundram Village, G.D. Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District. Respondent No.3 constructed a shopping complex in respect of which an auction notification was issued on 09.03.2010 inviting tenders for taking the shop rooms on lease for the financial year 2010-2011 commencing from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. The notification fixed 25.03.2010 at 2.00 p.m. as the date and time of auction. The petitioners averred that they have obtained the required D.Ds. towards deposits and that to their surprise the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.3 Gram Panchayat announced postponement of public auction, vide notice dated 25.03.2010 assigning “unforeseen reasons” as the reason for postponement of auction. This action of respondent No.3 is assailed in this writ petition. A perusal of the proceeding sheet shows that on 26.07.2010, this Court has adjourned the case by recording the submission of the learned standing counsel that further steps with regard to auction were not taken in view of interim orders passed by the civil Court. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that no such orders were passed by the civil Court restraining respondent No.3 from conducting the auction. In the absence of any counter- affidavit filed by respondent No.3 and its counsel not being present in the Court at the hearing, the reason for respondent No.3 postponing the auction is not forthcoming. Unless respondent No.3 is prevented by an order of competent Court, there can be no reason for it to postpone the auction. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to respondent No.3 to issue a fresh notification for auctioning the leasehold rights of the shopping complex for future period within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order unless an order of any Court restraining respondent No.3 from holding such auction is in force. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.22220 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03rd March, 2011 GHN