THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 15530 of 2010 Dated: 02.08.2010 Between: P. Sreenivasulu … Petitioner And 1. The Madanapalli Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Madanapalli, Chittoor District And 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 15530 of 2010 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent-Madanapalli Municipality in proposing to induct the 3rd respondent as a lessee in shop Nos.4 and 5 of Municipal Shopping Complex situated at Bangalore bus-stand of Madanapalli without any public auction for carrying on liquor business of bar and restaurant as arbitrary and illegal. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the shopping complex in question consists of 9 shops and the 1st respondent by resolution dated 31.09.1990 resolved to lease out the said shops by conducting a public auction. Pursuant thereto, though the leasehold rights were granted for some period by holding public auction, from 1995 onwards the 1st respondent started inducting the persons of their choice without putting the leasehold rights to public auction. That apart, one of the shops in the shopping complex was let out for running a bar and restaurant. In view of several complaints received from the public, though the bar and restaurant was closed and the possession was recovered from the then lessee, it is alleged that the 1st respondent was again proposing to induct the 3rd respondent in shops 4 and 5 for running a bar and restaurant. Contending that the shops in question cannot be leased out without conducting public auction, particularly for the purpose of carrying on liquor business, the present writ petition is filed with the above prayer. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, it is stated that the shop No.4 was leased out to the 3rd respondent who was the successful bidder in the auction held on 24.6.2010. It is stated that his bid was initially confirmed by the Chairperson of the Council and the same was subsequently ratified by the Municipal Council on 30.06.2010. The possession was also given to the 3rd respondent to carry on the business as per the conditions specified in the auction notification. It is further contended that the writ petitioner is a rival trader and the writ petition has been filed only on account of trade rivalry. The 3rd respondent filed a separate counter affidavit stating that being the highest bidder in the auction held on 24.06.2010, the leasehold rights of Shop.No.4 were granted to him. However, he did not reveal the business proposed to be carried on. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Municipality has placed before this Court the entire original record to show that the auction was held on 24.6.2010 and being the successful bidder, the 3rd respondent herein was granted the lease in respect of Shop No.4. Hence the petitioner’s allegation that the leasehold rights were granted without holding public auction is incorrect and unfounded. However the petitioner’s further allegation that the 3rd respondent is running a bar and restaurant in the said shop could not be disputed in the counter-affidavit of the respondents 1 and 3. The record shows that as per the auction conditions the lessee is prohibited from carrying on any business in liquor. In the circumstances, before approving the lease in favour of the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent is expected to make an enquiry as to the nature of the business proposed by the 3rd respondent so as to ensure that the shop in question is not put to use for any prohibited business. Apparently the 1st respondent failed to take such steps before approving the lease in favour of the 3rd respondent. However, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent vehemently contended that the petitioner who was not even a resident of the locality, had no locus standi to question the allotment of the shop to the 3rd respondent. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that W.P.Nos.1709 of 2008, 1734 of 2008, and W.P.No.6244 of 2008 were dismissed on the same ground. In the said writ petitions, the license granted to run a bar and restaurant was questioned on the ground that the same was contrary to the provisions of the Statutory Rules made under the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it was held by this Court that the petitioner therein had no locus standi to question the licence granted in favour of the respondents therein. The facts in the present case being entirely different, even assuming that the petitioner is not a resident of the locality the writ petition cannot be held to be not maintainable. This is a case where a specific allegation has been made that the 3rd respondent is running a bar and restaurant in the shop in question contrary to the auction conditions and the same could not be disputed by the respondents. In the circumstances, the 1st respondent Municipality is bound to take the necessary action in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to make an enquiry into the nature of the business being carried on by the 3rd respondent in Shop No.4 of the Municipal Shopping Complex and in case it is found that the 3rd respondent is running a bar and restaurant, immediate steps shall be taken for termination of the lease following due process of law. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 02.08.2010 Note:- CC in 3 days. (B/O) Klp/gbs