The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.22736 of 2010 Date: 13-09-2010 Between: Sathi Venkatarama Reddy ad 6 others ..... Petitioners AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh and 3 others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.R.Narsimha Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.4: M.M.Prabhakar Rao The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondent No.4- Gram Panchayat to renew the leases of its shops granted in favour of the petitioners without proceeding with the proposed auction of leasehold rights in terms of auction notice R.C.No.192/10/A2, dated 08-09- 2010, scheduled to be held on 18-09-2010. I have heard Sri R.Narsimha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj representing respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri M.Prabhakara Rao, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.4- Gram Panchayat. Respondent No.4 has constructed 101 shops and let out certain stalls to the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the proposed auction notice, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that under first proviso to Rule 12 (2) of the Rules Relating to Receipts and Expenditure of Gram Panchayats (for short ‘the Rules’), the petitioners, being existing lessees, are entitled to renewal of the leases held by them. In this regard, he placed reliance on proceedings, dated 24-06- 2010, of respondent No.4- Gram Panchayat, requesting respondent No.2- Collector (Panchayats), East Godavari District, Kakinada, to consider the representations of the existing lessees and refix the rents on the basis of the recommendations of the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Rajahmundry. This contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is opposed by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. Rule 12 (2) of the Rules envisages that all leases of buildings and lands belonging to the Gram Panchayats shall be effected by public auction. The first proviso to the said Rule provides that in the case of leases of lands and buildings, when it is advantageous to renew the lease in favour of the person, to whom it was originally granted, the Gram Panchayat may, with the previous sanction of the District Collector, dispense with the public auction. A perusal of the urgent memo, dated 26-08-2010, of respondent No.2 shows that he has taken into consideration a representation made by Sri G.Bapiraju, Sarpanch, stating that the leases in respect of 101 shops is being renewed in favour of the existing lessees for the last 20 years and that on account of such renewal, the Gram Panchayat is not able to earn even the minimum rentals and that therefore, the shops may be put to public auction in order to fetch higher income to the Gram Panchayat. In the said Urgent memo, respondent No.2 has also take into consideration a Writ Petition filed by one Nutika Babu Rao, Son of Chittayya, seeking appropriate directions against renewal of lease and the interim order granted by this Court against such renewal, directing respondent No.4 to hold auctions by fixing the minimum price, as proposed by the Committee. Under Rule 12 of the Rules, while public auction is a rule, renewal is an exception. This Rule does not, therefore, create any vested right in the existing lessees to insist that the leases shall be renewed in their favour without putting the shops to public auction. Unless the competent authority is satisfied that renewal of leases is advantageous to the Gram Panchayat, public auction cannot be dispensed with. Respondent No.2, obviously, kept in mind the interests of the Gram Panchayat in directing holding of the auction instead of renewing the existing leases. In the absence of any vested right in the petitioners, it is not possible for this Court to interdict such an action taken in the interests of the Gram Panchayat. However, the petitioners are entitled to participate in the auction along with others. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.28999 of 2010, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 13th September, 2010 lur