IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3335 of 2008 Between: Smt.Kuppili Padmavathi W/o.Hara Gopal D.No.11-15-5, Champagalli Veedhi Srikakulam Town, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Srikakulam Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue a Writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in insisting the petitioner to submit the Solvency Certificate without considering the Property Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Srikakulam Mandal and District to participate in the Public Auction in respect of Lease Hold rights for collection of Market Fee and Cycle Stand in Srikakulam Market vide Public Auction Notice Rc.No.8/2007-A4 dated 4.2.2008, as bad, arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the prescribed rules and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the Public Auction scheduled on 19.2.2008 in respect of collection of Market Fee and Cycle Stand i.e., Item No.1 of Public Notice dated 4.2.2008 by treating the Property Certificate as Solvency Certificate in the interest of justice and pass such other and further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents. Sri S.Nageswara Reddy for R.1. Asst.Govt. Pleader for Municipal The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3335 OF 2008 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in insisting the petitioner to submit the Solvency Certificate instead of considering the Property Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Srikakulam Mandal and District as a condition to participate in the public auction, vide: Public Auction Notice dated 4-2-2008, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, learned Standing for respondent No.1-Municipality. In pursuance of auction notice dated 4-2-2008 issued by respondent No.1, the petitioner claimed to have applied for permission to participate in the public auction. The petitioner pleaded that she obtained what is styled as Property Certificate from the Tahsildar, Srikakulam Mandal on 16-2-2008 and produced the same before the Commissioner of respondent No.1-Municipality, but he is insisting that the petitioner shall produce the Solvency Certificate instead of Property Certificate. Under Rule 7(3) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Regulation of Receipts and Expenditure) Rules, 1968, no person shall be permitted to bid at the auction unless he deposits as security such sum as shall be specified in the notice and files a solvency certificate of property worth the bid amount, countersigned by an officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of a Deputy Tahsildar in the case of landed property or by the Commissioner to the Municipality in the case of house property in the town. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the property in respect of which the certificate is given by the Tahsildasr, Srikakulam is a landed property, he has given the certificate by describing it as Property Certificate, and that the effect of this certificate is similar to the effect of a Solvency Certificate given in the case of house property. I have carefully considered this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I see force in his contention. The object behind insisting on production of a Solvency Certificate is to ensure that the persons, who participate in the auction, have sufficient means to ensure due execution of the contract. By whatever name the certificate may be called, so long as the proposed participant in the auction is able to show possession of sufficient property equal to the bid amount, the same would serve the purpose and object for which the stipulation of production of certificate is made. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to accept the Property Certificate produced by the petitioner; and on being satisfied about its authenticity, permit the petitioner to participate in the proposed public auction. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 18-2-2008 MNR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Srikakulam Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}