HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16416 of 2008 Date : 23.12.2011 Between : Koturu Muneiah. …..Petitioner And The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Gudur & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16416 of 2008 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the notice, dated 24th May 2008, issued by the 2nd respondent-Grampanchayat, by which, the petitioner was directed not to collect any fee within the limits of Grampanchayat for fish and mutton market of Naidupet Grampanchayat. The 2nd respondent-Grampanchayat is a body constituted under the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. It has notified for sale of rights for collection of daily fee for selling meat and fish within the market area of Grampanchayat for the period commencing from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2010. The petitioner has participated in the auction and he became the highest bidder with Rs.13,26,000/- and it is stated that certain amounts are already deposited by the petitioner i.e. Rs.1,15,000/- on the date of auction and a further amount of Rs.75,000/- was paid on 31.03.2007, in addition to some other amounts, totalling to Rs.2,50,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that the Grampanchayat itself has issued circular dated 29.03.2007, for payment of fee payable to him with regard to fish, mutton, prawns, eggs etc., but he was not allowed to collect any fee other than for mutton and fish. It is also the case of the petitioner that certain people were doing business by bringing chicken and eggs in vans, but they were not paying fee to the petitioner, and in this regard, a representation was also filed before the Grampanchayat, and inspite of the same, no steps have been taken. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he was the highest bidder, the impugned notice is issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, making baseless allegation that he has violated the terms and conditions of auction. Counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent- Grampanchayat. In the counter affidavit, while admitting that the petitioner was the highest bidder in the auction held on 22.03.2007, it is stated that he failed to deposit 50% of rent inspite of service of notice on 29.03.2007, and thus, he has not entered into any registered agreement with the Grampanchayat, as such, steps were taken to cancel the lease as per the terms and conditions of auction. It is stated that as the petitioner was physically handicapped, on humanitarian grounds, he was accommodated by accepting the meager amount paid by him, aggregating to Rs.2,30,000/-. Counter further states that the petitioner has defaulted in paying certain amounts to the Grampanchayat inspite of service of notice, dated 17.04.2008. As much as the petitioner has defaulted and breached the terms and conditions of auction, basing on the sanction given by the 1st respondent-Divisional Panchayat Officer, lease rights were given to the third party by following the procedure, as such, petitioner is not having any right to question the impugned notice. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents. In this case, it is to be noticed that there is no lease deed executed by the Grampanchayat in favour of the petitioner. While it is the case of the petitioner that he has participated in the auction for collection of fee for chicken, eggs, mutton, prawns etc., it is the case of respondents that the petitioner is entitled to collect fee only for mutton and fish. In the absence of any written lease deed, it is not possible to accept the contention of petitioner that he was permitted to collect the fee not only on meat and fish, but also on chicken and eggs. In any event, when it is the case of respondents that as the petitioner failed to deposit the rental amount as per the terms and conditions of auction, and did not enter into agreement with the Grampanchayat, no rights are accrued to the petitioner for collection of fee. In view of the plea of respondents that the petitioner himself has violated the terms and conditions of auction, it is not possible for this Court to decide the factual disputes which arise for consideration in between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent-Grampanchayat. As it is stated that the petitioner did not enter into a lease agreement with the Grampanchayat by paying requisite amount, and hence, the Grampanchayat has entered into lease agreement with a third party, I do not find any ground to invalidate the impugned notice. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to avail any other remedies open under law. No order as to costs. ______________________ 23rd December 2011 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr