IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WP.No. 1 3 2 5 8 OF 2010 Between: N. Niyazulla Khan s/o Hayath Khan, Aged about 56 years, President of Fruit Merchants Welfare Association, Regdn.No. 530 of 1997, /o. Municipal Market, Hindupur, Ananthapur district. & Anr. ..... Petitioners V/s. The Municipality, Hindupur, Ananthapur District. Represented by its Commissioner … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri T. SUJAN KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: Sri PALLE NAGESWARA RAO S.C. for Municipality Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 : Sri K. CHIDAMBARAM Standing Counsel for APGENCO The Court made the following : (Order follows 2nd page) THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WP.No. 1 3 2 5 8 OF 2010 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed seeking q declaration that the action of the respondent-Municipality in seeking to evict the members of the petitioner associations from their respective shops located at Municipal Market, Hindupur, Ananthapur district as arbitrary and illegal. Though it is not disputed before this Court that the lease granted in favour of the members of the petitioner associations had already expired, it is stated that the petitioners made a representation on 20-5-2010 expressing their willingness for continuation of lease on payment of rents with increase of 33 1/3% over and above the existing rents as per Rule-12(1) (h) of the Statutory Rules. It is contended that the impugned action of the respondent without considering the said representation is arbitrary and illegal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for the Municipality. Having regard to the admitted fact that the representation made by the petitioner associations is pending, the respondent- Municipality, in my considered opinion, is bound to consider the request of the petitioners in accordance with law before seeking any steps for recovery of possession of the shops in question. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion as to the entitlement of the petitioners for continuation of lease as sought by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 20-5-2010 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time, there shall be a direction to the respondent not to evict the members of the petitioners from the shops in their occupation. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. ___________________ Justice G. Rohini. 14-06-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.1 3 2 5 8 OF 2010 Circulation Entry No. 6 0 Date: 14-06-2010 COMPUTER No. 43 Court Master: I s L