HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.1914 of 2010 2nd June 2010 Between: M/s.Sri Devi Oil Agencies … PETITIONER(S) and The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation & CAD, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.1914 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation & Command Area Development appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 to 5. At their request the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner questions the inaction of the 1st respondent in considering his application made through the 5th respondent- Corporation vide letter dated 24.04.2006; the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing demand vide letter dated 17.06.2006; and the subsequent demands including the notices of eviction. The petitioner is running a petrol retail outlet of the Indian Oil Corporation (the 5th respondent herein). It is his case that the petroleum outlet was set up, and has been in operation since 1974, on an extent of 694.44 sq. yards; the 1st respondent had, vide proceedings dated 01.07.2001, granted temporary occupation of the said land to the 5th respondent for a period of five years on payment of Rs.3,750/- per annum; and the said grant/lease had expired on 30.06.2006 even before which date he had sought renewal in the month of April, 2006. The 2nd respondent, vide letter dated 17.06.2006, informed that, as per the audit objections raised by the office of the Accountant General in the year 2001, the Registrar of Assurances was requested to inform the market value of the land for the past five years; and the Registrar had informed that the market value of the land in Sy.No.595 was Rs.770/- per sq. yard during 2001-02, and had steadily increased to Rs.1,875/- per square yard by 2005-06. Calculating the lease rent at 12% of the market value of the land, the 2nd respondent sought payment of Rs.4,79,997/- towards arrears of lease rent. The petitioner would content that the amount so determined would, in effect, result in the lease rentals being increased from the existing rent of Rs.3,750/- per annum to Rs.1,56,249/- per annum. Reliance is placed by him on Paragraph 172(vii) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Works Code to contend that it is only the 1st respondent who is competent to grant temporary occupation of the land; fixation of the lease rentals also fell within the competence of the 1st respondent; and the 2nd respondent lacks jurisdiction to unilaterally hike the rentals from Rs.3,750/- per annum to Rs.1,56,249/- per annum. The land leased to the petitioner in the year 2001 is within the limits of the Nellore Municipal Corporation. The lease rent which the petitioner hitherto was asked to pay is a measly sum of Rs.300/- per month which, even after enhancement, is around Rs.13,000/- per month. The rent of Rs.13,000/- per month, for a plot of around 700 square yards of land situated within the limits of a municipal corporation is not so abnormally high as to be held to be arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner’s endeavour to continue to retain possession of an extent of 694.44 square yards of land on payment of a measly sum of Rs.300/- per month as rent would necessitate this Court refusing to exercise its discretion to entertain the writ petition. It is well to remember that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being discretionary, a Writ is not issued as a matter of course. A writ of mandamus is not a writ of course or a writ of right but is, as a rule, discretionary (C.R. Reddy Law College Employees’ Association, Eluru, W.G.District Vs. Bar Council of India, New Delhi)[1]. One of the limitations imposed by this Court, on itself, is that it would not exercise jurisdiction unless substantial injustice has ensued or is likely to ensue. It would not allow itself to be turned into a court of appeal to set right mere errors of law which do not occasion injustice. (Sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah)[2]. Even if a legal flaw might be electronically detected, this Court would not interfere save manifest injustice or a substantial questions of public importance is involved. (Rashpal Malhotra Vs. Mrs. Saya Rajput[3]; Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Vs. K.G.S.Bhatt[4]). On a query from the Court as to whether the Andhra Pradesh Public Works Code has statutory force, Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would fairly state that the provisions of the Code are not referable to any statute. The provisions of the Public Works Code, which are in the nature of administrative instructions, have no statutory force and are not enforceable in a Court of law. Not having the force of law these instructions do not confer any legal right upon anybody and, cannot, therefore be enforced even by Writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (G.J. Fermandez v. State of Mysore[5]; J.R. Raghupathy v. State of A.P.[6]; and Union of India v. S.L. Abbas[7]). In any view of the matter, as the petitioner seeks extension of lease of government land and questions his eviction therefrom, these matters are not in the public law realm. His remedy is only by way of a civil suit before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and not by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Leaving it open to the petitioner, if he so chooses, to avail other remedies open to him in law, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 2nd June 2010 CVRK HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.1914 of 2010 2nd June 2010 CVRK [1] 2004(5) ALD 180 (DB) [2] AIR 1955 S.C.425 [3] AIR 1987 SC 2235 [4] AIR 1987 SC 1972 [5] AIR 1967 SC 1753 [6] AIR 1988 SC 1681 [7] AIR 1993 SC 2444