THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.22463 of 2011 Date: 23.08.2011 Between: Sanaka Venkata Seshagiri Rao … Petitioner and The Marripalem Gram Panchayat, Rep.by its Secretary, Marripalem, Nagayalanka Mandal, Krishna District. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.22463 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as Sri G. Elisha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Gram Panchayat. 2. The petitioner has assailed the notice dated 1.8.2011 issued by the respondent-Gram Panchayat declining to extend the leasehold rights for fishing in respect of Murthy Gari Gunta Tank and Thimmai Tank of the respondent-Gram Panchayat on enhanced lease amount and directing him to handover the said tanks, as arbitrary and illegal. 3. The petitioner was the successful bidder in the public auction conducted on 18.8.2010 and 23.8.2010 for leasehold rights for fishing in respect of Murthy Gari Gunta Tank and Thimmai Tank, respectively, of the respondent-Gram Panchayat. According to the petitioner, the leasehold rights in respect of the said tanks was granted for a period of one year and the same are valid upto August, 2011. However, the respondent-Gram Panchayat has issued the impugned notice dated 1.8.2011 treating the lease as valid upto 30.6.2011 only. 4. The premise on which the petitioner has approached this Court is that since the auctions for leasehold rights in respect of the said tanks were conducted in the month of August, 2011, one year should be reckoned form the date of auction, in which event the lease would be valid upto 17.8.2011 and 22.8.2011. 5. The respondent-Gram Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit denying the averments in the writ petition and has produced copy of the conditions of lease. A perusal of the said conditions shows that the lease in respect of the said tanks was valid upto 30.6.2011. It is also stated that a fresh auction in respect of the said tanks was conducted on 8.8.2011 and the petitioner also unsuccessfully participated in the said auction. 6. Therefore, having regard to the specific period of lease granted in favour of the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 23.08.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.22463 of 2011 23.08.2011 (Msr)