HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.10731 of 2011 Date : 12-9-2011 Between : G. Ravi s/o. Narsimulu .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri P. Raghavender Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1 : G.P. for Municipal Administration & Urban Development Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 : Smt. Shanti Neelam, Standing Counsel Counsel for respondent No.5 : Sri Vladimeer Khatoon for Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside proceedings No.A1/2024/2008, dated 25-1-2011 of respondent No.3. The father of respondent No.5 was the lessee of respondent No.3 in respect of shop No.15, bearing Municipal No.2-6-7, Municipal Shopping Complex, Gandhi Road, Sadashivpet, Medak District. After the death of his father, respondent No.5 continued in the premises. Respondent No.3 held public auction-cum-tender in respect of various shops including the said shop on 22-2-2010. Respondent No.5 did not participate in the auction. The petitioner, who participated in the auction, emerged as the highest bidder offering a sum of Rs.2100/- per month. Respondent No.5 filed W.P.No.14982/2010 which was disposed of by this court by order dated 29-6-2010 with the direction to the official respondents, in particular respondent No.3, to consider his representations dated 1-12-2009 and 22-2-1010 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law for considering the extension of lease. It was further directed that till such consideration is made, auction shall not be conducted for grant of leasehold rights. Even though the auction was already conducted by that time, the representation of respondent No.5 was considered by respondent No.3 on 21-12-2010 and his request for extension of lease was rejected. The petitioner filed review petition against the order in W.P.No.14982/2010. In the said review petition, it was brought to the notice of this court that by proceedings dated 21-12-2010, respondent No.3 has already considered the representation of respondent No.5 and rejected the same. Taking note of the said fact, this court dismissed the review petition with the observation that the order in W.P.No.14982/2010 has worked itself out, with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy. Thereafter, by the impugned order passed on 25-1-2011, the Commissioner of respondent No.3 has allotted shop No.15 to respondent No.5 on lease for a period of one year from 1-2-2011 to 31-1-2012 subject to payment of Rs.2100/- per month, which was offered by the petitioner in the auction. From the facts noted above, it is clear that the Municipal Commissioner of respondent No.3 rejected respondent No.5’s request for renewal of lease on 21-12- 2010. No relief was granted by this court in the Writ Petition filed by respondent No.5 except to the extent that till his representations were disposed of, he shall not be dispossessed from the shop in question. The order of rejection of the request of respondent No.5 was not questioned and the same was accordingly allowed to become final. Even in the order passed in the review petition, this court has taken note of the fact of the said rejection. In this fact-scenario, the Commissioner of respondent No.3 has committed a serious illegality in allotting the shop in favour of respondent No.5 ignoring the highest offer made by the petitioner. This decision is contrary to the decision of respondent No.3 rejecting the request of respondent No.5 for renewal/extension of lease on 21-12-2010. Moreover, respondent No.5 has not even participated in the auction and there can be no justification whatsoever to deny the petitioner, who is the highest bidder, of the right to take the shop on lease and favour respondent No.5 with allotment of the shop permitting him to pay the same lease amount which was offered by the petitioner. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned proceeding of the Commissioner of respondent No.3- Municipality cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the petitioner’s offer by passing appropriate resolution within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Respondent No.5 is given one month’s time from today to handover vacant possession of shop No.15 failing which respondent No.3 shall be free to take vacant possession of the shop from respondent No.5. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel, WPMP Nos.13200/2011 and 13201/2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 12-9-2011 AM