IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10695 of 2002 Between: JYOTHI OIL COMPANY, Rep by its Proprietor Pasupuleti Malakondaiah (Dealer of India Oil Corporation)., Addanki Bus Stand, Ongole, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Ongole Municipality, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2 The director of Municipal Administration, Secreteriat, Hyderabad. 3 The Town Planning Officer, Ongole Municipality, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction in the nature of a Writ, declaring the proceedings of the 1st Respondent issued in RC.No.14691/2001/a1, dt.11.6.2002 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of natural justice and consequently to set aside the same and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.CHINTALAPUDI LAKSHMI KUMARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.E.SAMBASIVA PRATAP The Court made the following : ORDER : The petitioner is a dealer of Indian Oil Corporation to run a retail outlet of petrol and diesel. The premises, to run the petrol pump, has been taken on lease from the Ongole Municipality. Initially, the lease period was extended upto 31.03.1994. Further extension was made, as per the lease agreement, upto 31.03.2002. When, the petitioner made a representation for renewal of the lease deed, no action seems to have been taken on his representation. Hence, he approached this Court complaining inaction of the respondents on the representation seeking extension of lease period. Despite notice being served on the respondents, they did not choose to file counter. An interim direction came to be issued on 17.06.2002 initially for a period of two weeks vide W.P.M.P. No.13148 of 2002 and the said orders came to be extended until further orders on 09.07.2002. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not taking any action on his representation seeking extension of lease period. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner seeking extension of lease period and pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dated July 6, 2009 KSH