THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 4860 of 2010 Date: 03.03.2010 Between: A. Krishna Reddy. … Petitioner And The District Collector, Chittoor District and another. … Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 4860 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Nageswara Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent and at their request the writ petition is being disposed off at the stage of admission. The tender notice dated 24.02.2010, issued by the 2nd respondent for granting lease for collection of cess from vendors/shops in Indira Priyadarshini Vegetable Market, Tirupati for the year 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 is under challenge, in this writ petition. The petitioner was awarded lease to collect cess from the vendors/shops situated in Indira Priyadarshini Vegetable Market, Tirupati for the year commencing from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 by way of lease deed dated 15.04.2009. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner paid the lease amount of Rs.3,48,335/- per month in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease deed. It is the petitioner’s case that the 2nd respondent awarded a contract for completion of certain civil works in the market premises; the said work commenced in the first week of June, 2009; the entire market premises was filled with construction material due to which majority of the shops did not function; and consequently they could not collect cess from them. He claims to have made a representation to the 2nd respondent seeking extension of lease for a period of one year by enhancing the lease amount by 10% despite which the 2nd respondent issued a tender notice on 24.02.2010 inviting tenders from interested candidates for awarding the lease of collection of cess in the Indira Priyadarshini Vegetable Market, Tirupati for the year 2010- 2011. While the tender notice requires auction to be held on 05.03.2010, the petitioner would contend that, in view of his not being able to carry on business of collecting cess on account of the intervention by the 2nd respondent in having certain civil works executed, he was entitled for extension of lease by one year, more so as he was willing to pay 10% more than the previous year’s lease amount. Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that, since the petitioner was put to loss on account of the respondent-Municipality causing hindrance to the petitioner’s right to collect cess, he was entitled for extension of lease as a matter of right. No statutory provision or rule or even a condition of contract which entitled the petitioner to claim extension of lease has been brought to the notice of this Court. In the absence of any such right, the 2nd respondent cannot be held to be under any obligation to grant extension of lease. I see no reason, therefore, to accede to the petitioner’s request for extension of lease. If the petitioner has sustained any loss on account of the 2nd respondent’s interference in having civil works executed, it is always open to him to invoke the jurisdiction of the competent Civil Court in this regard. I see no reason to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition of this nature. The relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Date: 03.03.2010 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J MRKR