HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.215 of 2009 Date: 19.09.2011 Between: Shaik Syed John and two others. ..... Petitioners AND: The Municipal Council, Reptd by Its Chair Person, Macherla Municipality Guntur District and two others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri D.Kasim Saheb Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri T.Bheemanna For Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, Standing Counsel for Municipality Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri Ch.Ravindra Babu The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents-Municipality in earmarking the space under stair case to respondent No.3, by resolution No.708, dated 29.11.2008, of respondent No.1, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners are lessees of shop Nos.2, 5 and 7 of the respondent No.1-Municipality. Respondent No.3 is lessee in respect of shop No.1. Out of the three stair cases existing in the shopping complex, comprising 38 shops, the first stair case existed adjacent to shop No.1. Respondent No.3 has removed the said stair case and applied to respondent No.1 for permitting him to make use of the space. By resolution No.708, dated 29.11.2008, respondent No.1-Municipal Council accepted the proposal of respondent No.3, subject to the condition that he shall get the roof laid over the stair case portion with his own expenses in addition to paying Rs.15,000/- to respondents- Municipality. This resolution is questioned in this Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri D.Kasim Saheb, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the action of the Municipal Council in giving away the space to respondent No.3 is contrary to Rule 7 of the extant rules, under which, the said space shall be put to public auction. Learned counsel further submitted that by giving away the space under the stair case to respondent No.3, the petitioners and other lessees are put to inconvenience as they had been storing their vegetables in the space under the stair case. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that the space under the stair case is the subject matter of their leases. It is also not their case that they are espousing the cause of the public. Since the petitioners failed to establish their right over the space under the stair case, the impugned resolution does not in any manner violate their legally enforceable rights. While ordinarily any property of the municipality is liable to be given away by holding public auction, this is not an inviolable principle. Obviously, for convenient enjoyment by respondent No.3, by the side of whose shop the stair case was situated, respondent No.1 has taken the decision to give the space to him. Since the petitioners have not been espousing the public cause and no part of their rights as lessees is violated as the leases held by them do not authorise them to use the space under the stair case, no Mandamus can be issued to invalidate the impugned resolution. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.230 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ______________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th September 2011 DR