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 SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 7928 of 2008 Between: R.Srinivasulu S/o.Pallaiah R/o.D.No.18-1-311, Venugopal Nagar, Anantapur. ..... PETITIONER AND The Anantapur Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Municipal Commissioner, Anantapur. .....RESPONDENT 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 a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not following the procedure established under the Law and without their being specific authority of law pressurizing the petitioner orally he shall not collect Rs.17.00 per tractor loan (III Category) as per Rc.No. 042/2008/A-1 dt. 22.02.2008, which was issued by Respondent Municipal Corporation and consequently direct the respondent to follow the procedure established under the Law and not to pressurize the petitioner orally that, he shall not collect fee in relating to the tractor loan of Rs.17.00 (III category), and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Kunche Maheswara Rao Counsel for the Respondent : Sri S.I. Newton The Court made the following O R D E R: Heard Sri K. Maheswara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.I. Newton, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- Corporation. The respondent – Corporation has, by its notification dated 22nd February 2008, auctioned the right to collect the fee at various markets situated within its territorial limits, for the period commencing from 1st April 2008 up to 31st March 2009. The writ petitioner’s offer of Rs.64,36,544/- was found not only to be the highest offer, but also a competitive one and, hence, it was accepted and the respondent – Corporation had conferred the right on him, to collect the fee in various markets situated within its territorial limits, through its proceedings dated 1st April 2008. It is apt to notice, at this stage, that the auction notification has not left any discretion for the bidders or the contractors to collect the fee at rates prescribed by them. Instead, the Corporation had categorized the markets and also specified the maximum fee liable to be collected by the bidders. In the 3rd category of markets, which are mostly dealing with the business in cloth and other related products, Rs.17/- is liable to be collected per each tractor load. The writ petitioner asserts that he has been instructed orally by the officers of the respondent-Corporation not to collect Rs.17/- for every tractor load at markets of the 3rd category. This is being objected to by the writ petitioner, as it would be in violation of the conditions of the grant itself. The learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that the Corporation, having already conferred the necessary right to collect fee, in terms of its proceedings dated 1st April 2008, on the writ petitioner, it could not have objected the petitioner to collect fee of Rs.17/- on every tractor load of produce, which is sought to be brought in under the 3rd category markets. If the respondent – Corporation is in no manner interfering with the right of the petitioner to collect the fee at the rate of Rs.17/- per every tractor load of produce brought into the 3rd category markets situated within Ananthapur Municipal Corporation limits, then the petitioner cannot have any grievance whatsoever. If the petitioner is attempting to collect the fee at rates higher than those prescribed in the auction notification dated 22nd February 2008, then the respondent – Corporation would be preferably justified in raising an objection. In case, the respondent seeks to prevent the petitioner from collecting fee in any of the markets, upon noticing that he has been collecting in excess of the prescribed rates, it may do so by passing an order in writing and shall not indulge in issuing oral instructions in that regard. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. -------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J) 11th April 2008 Note: Issue CC in three days. (bo) ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}