IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2384 of 2008 Between: P.T. Gopalachari & Sons … Petitioner AND The Government of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Irrigation & CAD Dept., Secretariat Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Sridhar Reddy. Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: AGP for Irrigation This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2384 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in considering application dated 01.03.2006 submitted by the petitioner for renewal of lease of 104.17 Ankanams of land in Sy.No.1473 of Nellore Bit-I Village, Nellore town on which the petitioner is running its retail petroleum outlet and letter dated 22.01.2008 issued by respondent No.4, whereby he purported to enhance the lease amount of Rs.10,95,428/- retrospectively from the year 2000, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The petitioner also filed an application to amend the prayer to question proceedings dated 04.03.2008 of respondent No.4 whereby he was directed to vacate the premises. Heard Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and perused the record. The petitioner was granted lease for 7500 square feet of land in Sy.No.1473 for a period of five years for establishment of a petrol pump on payment of rent of Rs.4,500/- per annum from 22.12.1995. By proceedings dated 26.12.2000 the lease period was extended for a further period of five years up to 21.12.2005. The petitioner claims that it filed an application before respondent No.4 for renewal before expiry of the extended lease period and as the same was returned by respondent No.4 for being submitted to respondent No.1, the petitioner resubmitted the same before respondent No.1 on 25.02.2006 and this was followed by another application dated 01.03.2006. While so, respondent No.4 passed the impugned order, wherein it is mentioned that the extended lease period in favour of the petitioner expired by 21.12.2005 and in view of the audit objections raised in the year 2001 on the quantum of lease being paid by the petitioner, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.10,95,428/- from 2001-2002 to 2005-2006 towards the lease amount and the petitioner was asked to submit an application for renewal of lease for the period beyond 21.12.2005 along with a demand draft for the said amount. Subsequently, respondent No.1 issued memo dated 01.03.2008 giving instructions to the Engineer-in-Chief, Telugu Ganga Project, Srikalahasti to take over the land in question. Followed by the same, respondent No.4 issued proceedings dated 04.03.2008 wherein the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises on the ground of non-renewal of the licence and nonpayment of the enhanced lease amount. At the hearing, Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the A.P. Public Works Department Code (for short, ‘the Code’), a copy of which has been filed by the respondents along with their counter affidavit. Para 172 (vii) of the Code prescribed that orders of Government must be obtained in every case of grant in which the value of the property exceeds Rs.30,000/-. Sub-para (x) prescribed that renewal of grants can be sanctioned only by the authority competent to sanction the grant in the first instance. Sub-para (xi) provided that no attempt can be made to prescribe standard rates for the various purposes for which land may be granted. The determination of the charge is therefore left to the discretion of the authorities, who are competent to sanction the grant. On the basis of the abovementioned provisions of the Code, the learned counsel submitted that respondent No.4 has absolutely no jurisdiction to deal with the issue of either renewal or fixation of lease amount and it is only the State Government, which is competent to consider renewal and fixation of lease amounts since, admittedly, the value of the property in question is above Rs.30,000/-. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation fairly conceded that it is the Government which alone is the competent authority to renew the lease and fix the lease amounts. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, there can be no dispute that respondent No.4 has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Letter dated 18.04.2006 addressed by respondent No.4 to the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Nellore clearly shows that the petitioner’s application for renewal was submitted to the Government on 14.02.2006 and he recommended the Superintending Engineer to address the Government from circle level for according permission for renewal of the lease for another period of five years as per the market value furnished by the Registrar, Nellore. From this letter, it is clearly evident that respondent No.4 is conscious of the fact that it is only the Government, which is competent to entertain the application for renewal and fix the lease amount. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 22.01.2008 and the subsequent proceedings dated 04.03.2008 of respondent No.4 are set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the application of the petitioner for renewal of lease subject to such terms and conditions as are permissible under law. Till the disposal of the petitioner’s application for renewal, the respondents shall not interfere with the business of running retail outlet by the petitioner on the site in question, subject to the petitioner continuing to pay pre-existing lease amount. The sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, which was deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the directions of this Court, shall be retained by the respondents subject to the orders to be passed by the Government on the petitioner’s renewal application. The said sum shall be adjusted to the lease amount payable by the petitioner in future. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.Nos.3058, 3059, 6819 of 2008 and WVMP.No.1019 of 2008 disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 17.04.2008 ES