THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.29030 OF 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from the vents Nos. 1,2,4,5,6 and 7 situated at Under the Railway Over Bridge between Km. 0/4-8 of Chittoor – Puttur Road, without considering the representation of the petitioner dated 8.11.2010 amounts to erroneous and illegal decision. The writ petitioner entered into a contract with the respondents to take on lease the vents constructed under the Railway Over bridge for Warehousing purposes. The period of this lease has been extended from time to time and for nearly 20 years the writ petitioner continued to utilize the space for warehousing activity. The last of those extensions came to an end on 7.11.2010 and hence the respondents have issued a notice calling upon the writ petitioner to deliver the vacant possession of the vents. The writ petitioner submitted a representation on 8.11.2010 wherein it is clearly admitted that the existing lease period came to an end on 7.11.2010. It is pleaded by the petitioner that alternative accommodation could not be secured by the writ petitioner, for shifting the material which is warehoused in the present premises and consequently the difficulty has arisen for her to vacate the present premises. She therefore sought for extension of the existing lease period by further five years tenure. She was also graceful enough to suggest enhancement in the leasehold amount. On the premise that the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 8.11.2010 has not yet received the attention of the respondents, the present writ petitioner has been instituted. The learned Asst. Government Pleader who has received a brief note from the Executive Engineer, R&B Division, Chittoor, informs the court that the representation dated 8.11.2010 submitted by the writ petitioner has in fact has been examined and the Executive Engineer through his letter No.Vents/2010- 11/A3, dated 11.11.2010 informed the petitioner that her representation dated 8.11.2010 has been considered and in view of the terms and conditions of the agreement, the period of lease cannot be extended and hence she was requested to vacate the above vents immediately and hand over the vacant possession thereof to the Deputy Executive Engineer/R&B, Chittoor to enable the department to take necessary further action in the matter. Therefore, the factual basis upon which the writ petition has been instituted that the representation of the writ petitioner dated 8.11.2010 has not been taken into consideration is mislaid. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for R&B would further submit that the agreement/indenture entered into by and between the writ petitioner and the respondents – R&B department on 21.11.2008 clearly indicated that the period of currency of the indenture expire by 7.11.2010 and thereafter the writ petitioner was required to hand over the vacant possession thereof to the department. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri T.C.Krishnan. When once the parties regulate their conduct particularly a commercial nature of transaction by entering into a written contract and the currency of the said contract having come to an end on 7.11.2010, the action of the respondents in requiring the writ petitioner to deliver vacant possession of the premises indentured to the petitioner cannot be faulted. Further, whether the currency of the lease period should be extended by a further five year period or not is a decision rested on the wisdom of the department. If the department feels confident that if the leasehold rights are offered by inviting open tenders, the same may fetch a higher amount commensurate with the prevailing commercial or market rates, the same is not open to a challenge in a writ petition. Such a decision of the department is incapable of being interfered with in the absence of any legal regimen, the rights, liabilities and obligations of the respective parties are liable to be regulated by the terms contained in a contract. The State acting through its officers or public instrumentalities are entitled to enter into commercial contracts in the same manner as any other citizen could have. Merely because the State is a party to a contract, such a contract does not partake the characteristics of a statutory contract nor would such a contract acquire enforceability through the mechanism of the writ proceeding, I the absence of a regulatory law. I therefore consider that this writ petition is devoid of any merit and it is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. Further, taking into consideration the peculiar facts pleaded by the petitioner, the respondents will do well not to evict the petitioner till 15.12.2010, subject, of course to the usual conditions that the writ petitioner shall pay the proportionate leasehold amount for the period commencing from 8.11.2010 to 15.12.2010, as damages for occupation beyond the permissible period. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J knk 22nd November 2010