THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 15222 OF 2010 Date: 21.07.2010 Between: K.Anji Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND The Special Officer, H.M.D.A., Buddha Purnima Project Authority and 2 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:- THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.15222 of 2010 O R D E R : By order dated 04.07.2006 passed by the 1st respondent the petitioner was permitted to run a digital instant photography stall in Budha Poornima Project on payment of monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.100/- towards electricity charges. Initially permission was granted for a period of six months from 04.07.2006 to 03.01.2007 and thereafter, the same was extended from time to time up to 30.06.2010 on payment of revised rent. It is stated that for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.06.2010 the petitioner paid the rent at the rate of Rs.1,420/- per month i.e., 5% increase from earlier rent. On 25.05.2010 the petitioner applied for further extension with 5% increase of rent. However, the 1st respondent by order dated 26.06.2010 directed the petitioner to pay the enhanced licence fee of Rs.8,000/- per month from 01.07.2010 onwards. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent in enhancing the licence fee from Rs.1,420/- to Rs.8,000/- per month is arbitrary and illegal. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 stating that the petitioner was granted extension on payment of Rs.8000/-, since for similar activity the other photographers made applications for grant of licence on payment of a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as licence fee. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. At the outset it is to be noticed that the matter does not involve any statutory right. There is nothing on record to show that the permission was earlier granted to the petitioner to carry on his business in exercise of any statutory power. Much less there is any material to show that the impugned decision of the respondents to fix the rent at Rs.8,000/- per month is contrary to any statutory provision. It is specifically pleaded in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the other photographers have come forward to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month for similar activity and the same could not be contraverted by the petitioner. No allegation is made attributing malafides to any of the respondents. In the circumstances, I am unable to hold that the impugned order is illegal or arbitrary. The Writ Petition which is without any merit is accordingly dismissed. No costs. However, this shall not preclude the respondents to consider the continuation of the petitioner, provided the petitioner gives his consent for payment of the rent as fixed in the impugned order. ​ ____________ Date: 21.07.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd