THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.6384 of 2011 DT.14.03.2011 Between: Smt.N.Dhanalakshmi and others … Petitioners And The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Panchayat Bhavan, Hyderguda, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Thata Singaiah Goud Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: Smt.Ch.Vedavani The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside tender notification, dated 03.03.2011, issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Thata Singaiah Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Smt.Ch.Vedavani, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos.2 and 3, and perused the record. The petitioners are lessees of the shopping complex owned by Satyavedu Gram Panchayat (respondent No.3). The lease period in respect of the petitioners’ shops is coming to an end by 31.03.2011. By resolution, dated 23.12.2010, respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat resolved to put the leasehold rights of the shops to fresh auction for a period of three years, by getting the upset price fixed by the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Chandragiri. Subsequently, by the impugned auction notice, dated 03.03.2011, respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat has called for tenders for leasing out the rights for running the shopping complex for the year 2011-12 commencing from 01.04.2011. Following the said tender notification, respondent No.2 has addressed letter, dated 07.03.2011, to the Divisional Panchayat Officer requesting him to permit the Gram Panchayat to auction the leasehold rights for the years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 and also fix the upset price. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned auction notice is contrary to the resolution passed by respondent No.3, inasmuch as while under the said resolution, it was decided to put the leasehold rights for auction for a period of three years, after getting the upset price fixed, the notification issued by respondent No.2 has confined the lease period to only one year. The learned counsel further submitted that even without getting the upset price fixed, respondent No.2 in a hurried manner issued the tender notice fixing 15.03.2011 as the date of auction. I find force in this submission of the learned counsel. A perusal of the resolution shows that the Gram Panchayat resolved to put the leasehold rights to auction for a period of three years. Even respondent No.2 in his letter, dated 07.03.2011, addressed to the Divisional Panchayat Officer, has requested the latter to permit auction of the leasehold rights of the shops as per the resolution for a period of three years, after fixing the upset price. Therefore, evidently the tender notification issued for a period of one year without getting the upset price fixed cannot be proceeded with. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to conduct auction of leasehold rights of the shops strictly in accordance with the resolution, dated 23.12.2010, passed by respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat and the Rules that are in force as on today, after getting the upset price fixed by the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Chandragiri. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.7958 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 14.03.2011 Note: Communicate the operative portion of the order by wire at party’s costs. (b/o) VGB