IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14207 of 2008 Between: M/s. Vasavi Ads Agency (Regd) Rep. by its Partner B. Hanumanthu S/o. B. Nagi Shetty R/o. 1-3-128, Ram Reddy Complex, Rajendranagar, Mahabubnagar Town & District. ..... PETITIONER AND Mahabubnagar Municipality Rep. by its Commissioner, Mahabubnagar District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to pass an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent/Municipality in issuing the Notification calling for fresh tenders vide No. G1/4934/08 dt. 19-6-2008 which was published on 21-6-08 without considering our re-resentation dt. 17-6-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and against the Principles of natural justice and set aside the same as it violatives Art 14, 19 & 21 of Constitution of India, Consequently direct the respondent/Municipality to extend the lease period of the petitioner firm upto the end of March 09 and pass any other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.ASHOK KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.RADHA KRISHNA POLISETTY (SC FOR MPL) The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 14207 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by M/s Vasavi Advertisement Agency with a prayer to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondent-Municipality in issuing the Notification calling for fresh tenders vide No. G1/4934/08, dated 19-6-2008 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner is firm engaged in different business activities in Mahabubnagar town. In response to Notification issued by Mahabubnagar Municipality on 4-5-2005 calling for the tenders for the collection of advertisement Tax from Municipal Area for a period of three years, the petitioner participated in the tender and became a successful bidder. The tender period expired and therefore, the respondent Municipality called for fresh tenders. The petitioner submitted application seeking extension of the period on the ground that he sustained certain loss due to removal of hoarding highhandedly by the respondent Municipality. There being no respnse from the respondent, the petitioner choose to approach this Court with a prayer stated supra. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner sustained loss during the subsistence of the license period and therefore, his license is required to be renewed. The plea of the petitioner is that calling for tenders by the respondent pending consideration of his representation is unjustified. 5. Writ of mandamus is a pre-emptory order of the Court commanding somebody to do that which he is under a clear legal duty to do. In order to obtain a writ or order in the nature of ‘Mandamus’, the applicant must satisfy the following conditions. 1) The applicant must show that he has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty ( as distinguished from discretion) by the party against whom the mandamus is sought, and such right must be subsisting on the date of petition. 2) The duty that may be enjoined by Mandamus may be one imposed by the constitution, a statue, common law and by rules or orders having the force of law. 6. Indisputably, the period of license in favour of the petitioner has expired. If the petitioner has sustained any loss because of the removal of the hoarding highhandedly by the Respondent Municipality, the petitioner has to work out his remedy in a civil Court. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is wholly misconceived and it is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Dismissal of this writ petition does not preclude the Respondent Municipality to consider any representation submitted by the petitioner. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 3rd July, 2008. Note: C.C. in two days B/o KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 14207 OF 2008 3rd July, 2008.