The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.3066 of 2006 Dated 5th August, 2010 Between: Inavalli Venkata Nageswara Rao …Petitioner And The Government of A.P., and another. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.J.Venkateswara Reddy for Mr.J.Prabhakar Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.2: Mr.S.Nageswara Reddy The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in not granting remission for payment of monthly instalments from 01-09-2005 to 31- 03-2006, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.2 to grant remission and refund the amount of Rs.2,26,670/- with interest @ 30 % per annum. The petitioner was a successful bidder for right to hold Cattle Shandy at a place abutting Thandava river and opposite to Srinivasa theatre in Tuni town. The period of contract was from 11-05-2005 to 31-03-2006. The petitioner averred that during August, 2005, a foundation stone was laid by the then Hon’ble Chief Minister for construction of houses under Rajiv Gruhakalpa Scheme over the land, in which the Cattle Shandy was being held. It is the case of the petitioner that though for some time, the Cattle Shandy was held on road margins, from September, 2005, the Cattle Shandy was completely stopped and that later, the place of Cattle Shandy was shifted to the neighbouring twin town viz., Payakaraopet. The petitioner appeared to have approached the respondents for remission of the “Taseelu” (lease amount) and refund of the amount already paid by him with interest. This request was rejected by respondent No.2- Municipality. Questioning this action, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. Respondent No.2- Commissioner of Tuni Municipality filed a counter-affidavit wherein, while admitting that a foundation stone was laid over the land in question for construction of houses under Rajiv Gruhakalpa housing programme, he has denied that running of Cattle Shandy was completely stopped. He has stated that subsequent to the laying of foundation stone, the Cattle Shandy was being held on road margins and also on the vacant site abutting Thandava river of Kottam road within the Tuni Municipal limits. It is further maintained that Payakaraopet Gram Panchayat is situated on the other side of the Thandava river in close proximity with the Tuni Municipality and that on account of the proposed utilisation of the place, in which Cattle Shandy was being held in Tuni, some persons may have participated in a Payakaraopet Cattle Shandy. It is specifically averred that the petitioner continued to collect Taaseelu from the cattle owners, even when the Cattle Shandy was being held in the road margins and vacant sites along Srinivasa Theatre road and Kottam road. No reply affidavit has been filed controverting the above-averments contained in the counter-affidavit. The respective pleadings of the parties give rise to a serious dispute as to whether the petitioner has collected the Taseelu from the cattle owners when the Cattle Shandy was being held on road margins and vacant sites or not. At the hearing, Sri J.Venkateswara Reddy, learned Counsel representing Sri J.Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, fairly conceded that there is no provision under the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 or the Rules made thereunder for remission of the Taseelu. In the absence of such a provision, the petitioner shall make out a case of breach of contract to enable him to get relief from the competent civil Court. As this dispute requires to be adjudicated on the basis of the evidence to be adduced by both the parties, the only appropriate remedy available for the petitioner is to file a civil suit. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, without going into the merits of the respective submissions of the parties, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of filing a civil suit. C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 5th August, 2010 lur