HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.25456 of 2007 Date: March 10, 2011 Between: 1. Mediboina Ganesh & another … Petitioner and 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru & 3 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.25456 of 2007 ORDER: The grievance of the petitioners was with regard to the action of the State and the Zilla Praja Parishad, West Godavari, respondents 1 and 2, in granting leasehold rights in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.25.81 cents in R.S. No.1176 of Gundugolanu village, Bhimadole Mandal, West Godavari District, on nomination basis to respondents 3 and 4. They accordingly sought a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to grant the said leasehold rights only by way of public auction. 2. This Court, by interim order dated 30.11.2007, directed that renewal of the lease in question shall not be made except by way of public auction. 3. It is now stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that pursuant to the above order, the leasehold rights in respect of the subject land were put to public auction in the year 2010, fetching a higher price than that fixed by respondents 1 and 2 while granting the said rights to respondents 3 and 4 on nomination basis. 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, West Godavari District, respondent 2, filed his counter stating that the leasehold rights over the subject land were put to auction in the year 1998 and respondents 3 and 4 became the highest bidders. They were accordingly granted leasehold rights up to the year 2001. He stated that at their request the lease was extended for a further period of three years with enhancement of the rents by 33.33% over and above the existing rent. This extended lease also expired in the year 2004. Upon the representation made by respondents 3 and 4, the lease was again extended by another three years upon similar enhancement of the rent. This extended lease period came to an end in the year 2007. Again, respondents 3 and 4 made a representation seeking further extension of their lease. Basing upon the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Agriculture Officer concerned, the authorities decided to extend the lease by a further period of three years upon a similar enhancement of the rent by 33.33%. This decision was embodied in the proceedings dated 17.7.2007 and 20.7.2007. Respondent 2 therefore sought to justify the grant of the leasehold rights on nomination basis by stating that respondents 3 and 4 were regularly paying the rents and were also giving effect to the enhancement thereof as fixed by the authorities. 5. It is however to be noticed that no normative procedure is adhered to by the authorities while extending the lease on nomination basis in favour of respondents 3 and 4. Respondent 2 is not in a position to state that whether any rule or regulation permits such extension of lease indefinitely on nomination basis. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that after the expiry of the lease in favour of respondents 3 and 4 in the year 2010, the leasehold rights were put to public auction as directed by this Court under the interim order dated 30.11.2007. That being so, the cause in respect of extension of the lease in favour of respondents 3 and 4 does not survive for adjudication. It is however made clear that respondents 1 and 2 are bound to follow the procedure laid down by law while granting leasehold rights in respect of public properties. Needless to state, such procedure would have to be fair, transparent and above board in all respects. Subjective methods of granting leasehold rights, such as on nomination basis, unless sanctioned by law cannot be countenanced. 7. The writ petition is closed subject to the above observations. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: March 10, 2011. BSB