IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE HON’BLE SRI ANIL R.DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22692 of 2009 Between: Chinnamsetty Edukondalu. …Petitioner And: The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Agriculture & Marketing, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and three others. …Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T.Bala Swamy. Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K.Madhava Reddy, Standing Counsel for R.3 and R.4. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI ANIL R.DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22692 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.,) In this Writ Petition, stated to be filed in public interest, the petitioner has questioned allotment of certain shops in “Sardar Sri Kasu Vengal Reddy Shopping Complex”, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, in favour of some third parties, as illegal and arbitrary. The grievance of the petitioner, a resident of Narasaraopet town, Guntur District, is that the above mentioned shopping complex, which consisted of 38 shops in all, was not put to auction as per the established procedure by respondent No.3-Market Committee. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.3 has deviated from the normal procedure of auctioning the leasehold rights of the shops under the influence of respondent No.4, Chairman of the Market Committee. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.4, for extraneous considerations, managed to see that 17 persons, who were not the encroachers of the site over which the shopping complex was constructed, were allotted the shops, while permitting allotment of 21 stalls to the persons, who were evicted from the site. On the direction of this Court, Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4, produced the record. A perusal of the record shows that in the emergency meeting of the General Body held on 6-8-2009 respondent No.3 has resolved to allot 32 shops in the complex in question in favour of the persons, who were evicted from the site, on which the shopping complex was constructed, while keeping 5 shops vacant in pursuance of the directions given by this Court, in the pending Writ Petition. We also find from the record that the names of 32 persons, in whose favour allotments were proposed to be made, were also mentioned. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the said 32 persons were identified on the basis of their producing the proof of their earlier occupation with reference to the tax receipts and other documents; and that the stalls were already handed over to them and rents are being collected from them. He also submitted that the above mentioned resolution passed by respondent No.3 was sent to respondent No.2 for his approval; and that the same is pending before him. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are of the view that allotment of shops was made on the basis of the resolution passed by respondent No.3. Inasmuch as the said resolution is required to be approved by respondent No.2, it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the legality or otherwise of the said resolution or the proprietary in the action of respondent No.3 in allotting the shops to the 32 persons on nomination basis. As respondent No.2 is the authority competent to decide this aspect, this issue is left to him for an appropriate decision to be taken while examining the request of respondent No.3 for approval of the resolution passed by it. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ., C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dt.10-12-2009 MNR