HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7866 of 2011 Date:09.08.2011 Between: Muddla Chandra Rao ..... Petitioner AND Government of AP., Reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri K.S.Murthy Counsel for Respondent No.1 : AGP for Municipal Administration Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Sri K.Swarna Seshu, Standing Counsel for Municipality The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing tender-cum-auction notice, dated 15.03.2011, for auctioning the rights to collect tax at Jampeta market area as illegal. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.2 not to auction the leasehold rights to collect tax from Jampeta market without refunding the amount paid by him and compensating him for the alleged losses he has suffered. I have heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt K.Swarna Seshu, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the record. The petitioner participated in the auction held for collecting aseel (tax) for the period 2010-2011 for Jampeta market and was successful in emerging as the highest bidder. Accordingly, his offer was accepted and a sum of Rs.4 lakhs was stated to have been paid by him to the Corporation. However, before commencement of the collection of tax by the petitioner, he was informed through endorsement, dated 09.04.2010, by respondent No.2 that in Writ Petition No.7302 of 2010, filed by the President of Jampeta Wholesale and Retail Fish Merchants Welfare Association, this Court has granted stay of collection of tax and therefore, the petitioner shall not commence the work of collection of tax. After the expiry of the lease period, respondent No.2 has issued fresh tender-cum-auction notice scheduling the auction to be held on 25.03.2011. Questioning this auction notice, the petitioner filed the present writ petition by taking the stand that as his money paid in pursuance of the award of lease in his favour for the year 2010-2011 was held up with respondent No.2 and that, he has suffered huge losses as he was prevented from exercising his leasehold rights, for which respondent No.2 is liable to pay the damages, till his claims are settled, respondent No.2 cannot go ahead with the proposed tender-cum-auction for the year 2011-2012. A counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.2 along with the vacate stay application, wherein it is inter alia stated that the petitioner has paid Rs.3,51,500/- and Rs.50,000/- towards ‘kisthi’; that besides the fishermen community, the Jampeta market is being used by the vendors of several communities and trades selling other commodities like vegetables, fruits, rice, kirana, potteries, meat, chicken, etc., and that, except collecting the kisthi from the vendors of the fishermen community, the petitioner collected the same till the last day of the financial year 2010-2011 from all other vendors in the said market. Respondent No.2 further averred that a sum of Rs.10,04,500/- is still due form the petitioner to the Corporation and that, as the petitioner’s contract has already expired by 31.03.2011, he has no right to prevent respondent No.2 from auctioning the leasehold rights for the subsequent year. Admittedly, the petitioner’s contract period has expired by 31.03.2011. Under the extant provisions applicable to respondent No.2, it is entitled to auction the leasehold rights upon the expiry of the existing lease period. Even assuming that the petitioner has claims against respondent No.2, he cannot prevent the said respondent from exercising its statutory powers and discharging its functions which include collection of kisthi or taxes, as the case may be, from the said market. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not permissible for the petitioner to restrain the respondents from going ahead with the auction of the leasehold rights for the subsequent period on the purported ground that his claim for payment of certain amounts is not decided by respondent No.2. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is without any merit and hence, the same is dismissed. However, this order will not prevent the petitioner from making a representation to respondent No.2 and if such a representation is made, it is needless to observe that respondent No.2 shall consider the same and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, the order, dated 06.04.2011 passed in W.P.M.P.No.9784 of 2011 is vacated and W.V.M.P.No.1984 of 2011 is disposed of infructuous. . _____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 09thAugust, 2011 Note: Issue CC in one week. B/o DR