THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.13475 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners are lessees in respect of Shop Nos.3 and 7, respectively, of the Shopping Complex, at NTR Mini Stadium, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District, for the last several years. It is stated that the lease, initially granted about 20 years back, is being renewed from time to time. The Grampanchayat, the 3rd respondent herein, issued tender notice dated 28-02-2009, inviting bids for grant of fresh leases. 15 lessees of that complex filed W.P.No.4736 of 2009, challenging the tender notice. The writ petition was dismissed on 20-03-2009. It was, however, directed that, in case the petitioners therein emerge as the highest bidders, or if they express their willingness to pay the amount, that is fetched as the highest bid, fresh leases shall be granted in their favour. The petitioners herein are not parties to that writ petition. The bid was held. The 3rd respondent addressed letters to the lessees, to ascertain their willingness to pay the amount, that is fetched as the highest bid. The petitioners were also issued such letters. However, even before receiving such letters, but after the bids were finalized, the petitioners expressed their willingness to pay the amount, that is fetched as the highest bid, for their shops. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents 1 to 3 are not accepting the offer made by them. The 3rd respondent filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated that the facility provided for under the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4736 of 2009 is restricted to the petitioners therein, and cannot be claimed by those, who are not parties to it. According to them, the 4th respondent emerged as the highest bidder for a shop, and the petitioners cannot deny her right to be granted the lease. To the same effect is the counter-affidavit filed by the 4th respondent. Heard Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent, and learned counsel for the 4th respondent. The lease in favour of the petitioners and several other lessees expired long back. Earlier, extensions were granted, without inviting tenders. As observed earlier, tender notice was issued on 28-02-2009. Out of several lessees, only 15 have approached this Court, by filing W.P.No.4736 of 2009. While dismissing the writ petition, an observation was made to the effect that in case the petitioners emerg as the highest bidders, or if they express their willingness to pay the amount, that is fetched as the highest bid, fresh leases shall be granted in their favour. The relief was specific to the parties thereto. It was not at all decided as the general principle of law. Inasmuch as the petitioners were not parties thereto, they cannot claim that benefit. It is true that in Delhi Development Authority v. Rajendra Singh and others[1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, in case the relief is granted to a party in the proceedings before a Court, others, who stand on the same footing, are also entitled for such relief. In the instant case, had the petitioners approached this Court, before the auction was conducted, they would have been extended the same relief, as in W.P.No.4736 of 2009, without any hesitation. The auction that was held in respect of the shops, that were under the lease of the petitioners, was held without any such condition. The participants in the auction would certainly be guided by the riders, if any. The petitioners cannot make out a grievance, after valuable rights have accrued to the successful bidders. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.04-02-2010. KO [1] (2009) 8 SCC 582