IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12549 of 2008 Between: Smt. V. Siva Kumari W/o. Sri. Siva Nageswara Rao R/o. 8-10-111/2, Nehru nagara, Guntur. ..... PETITIONER AND The Guntur Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Guntur. .....RESPONDENT 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 issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in collection Aseel from the vendors of road margins, open spaces etc., at PVR Market by issuing daily receipts as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the proceedings of the respondent bearing Roc.no.348/2007/A2, dt.18.4.2008 and issue a consequential direction the respondent not to collect the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.BADETI.VENKATA RATHNAM The Court made the following : O R D E R: Guntur Municipal Corporation-respondent issued notiﬁcation on 4.3.2008 calling for tenders in respect of sundries market. The petitioner participated in the auction conducted on 24.3.2008 and became a successful bidder. The respondent issued proceedings dated 18.4.2008 awarding contract of collection of Aseel in respect of sundries market. The contract is valid till 31.3.2008. When the authorities started collecting the amounts from the persons carrying on the trade outside the PVK market, the petitioner gave representations on 13.5.2008, 19.5.2008 and 2.6.2008 resisting the action of the respondent- authorities. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to charge from the vendors who carry out their operations not only from the venlock market but also on the road margins etc. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner I deem it appropriate to refer para 4 of the writ affidavit, which reads as under: “ 4. As seen from the gazette notiﬁcation itself, more particularly, clause 9 under the caption “Particulars of Sundries Market Fees”, it is clear that the successful bidder is entitled to charge from the vendors who carry out their operations not only from Venlock market, but also on the road margins, open areas either on carts or at the open sites on the road margins in respect of fruits, coconuts, tender coconuts, vegetables and items sold in the shops. I am entitled to charge for these articles at the rate of Rs.5/- per day. However, notwithstanding the same, it is noticed that the respondent is charging Rs.6/- per day and also issuing daily receipts by putting the seal as PVK market. I am herewith ﬁling some of the receipts bearing Nos.9751, 9753 and 9754 etc. as Annexures. It is submitted that I gave a representation to the respondent on 13.5.2008 in Telugu along with English translation followed by subsequent representations on 10.5.2008, 19.5.2008 and 2.6.2008, but so far no action is taken and the collection of Aseel by the respondent is continuing. I submit that this is a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the auction. I submit that I gave my quotation based on the clear recital in the gazettee notiﬁcation itself that I am entitled to charge from these vendors, but now I am deprived of this. The respondent being an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, cannot act arbitrarily and in gross violation of the terms and conditions issued by itself, I am, therefore, constrained to file this writ petition.” There being no action on the representations submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner approached this court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent ﬁled counter aﬃdavit. It is stated in the counter aﬃdavit that on the representation submitted by the petitioner, the area was inspected and the petitioner was informed through endorsement dated 7.6.2008 that the place pointed out to be the collection area of sundries market falls within the boundary of PVK Naidu retail market. It is further stated in the counter aﬃdavit that the rates of fee and conditions for collection of aseelu and procedure for collection in various markets was notiﬁed in the notiﬁcation as guidelines to the contractors and also for the payees. As per caption 9 which relates to sundries market, the contractor is entitled to collect aseelu from coconut, vegetables, fruit vendors who sell the commodities through four wheeler man pull cart only. Since the boundaries of venlock market and sundries market are very near and interact on both the markets, the condition was imposed. It is further stated in the counter aﬃdavit that the petitioner is well aware of the conditions and boundries of sundries for the information of the public as well as contractors. The petitioner is entitled to ﬁle the objections earlier or before the auction as she was supplied with the gazettee copy meant for auction before her participation in the auction, or else she might have claimed at the time of handing over the sundries market to her duly showing the boundries etc. of the market by the concerned revenue staﬀ. She cannot claim after the commencement of the contract, which leads to dispute of the lease of the year. The petitioner ﬁled reply aﬃdavit. It is stated in the reply aﬃdavit that per clause 9 of Sundries market fee particulars clearly enables collection of aseelu by the contractor from the vendors operating from the roads and road margins except in respect of venlock market. When this writ petition came up for admission hearing, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the extra ordinary gazettee dated 4.3.2008 speciﬁes the boundries of P.V.K.Naidu market and therefore the petitioner is entitled to collect aseelu from the traders who have been carrying on the business outside the PVK Naidu market. Learned counsel took me to the boundries speciﬁed in the notiﬁcation dated 4.3.2008. He also took me to the proceedings dated 18.4.2008 where under contract came to be awarded in favour of the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation submits that the petitioner is not entitled to collect any amount by virtue of proceedings dated 18.4.2008 from the traders who have been carrying on business within the area of P.V.K.Naidu market. I have gone through the gazettee notiﬁcation dated 4.3.2004 wherein boundries of P.V.K.Naidu market have been specified. The boundries of P.V.K.Naidu market as speciﬁed in the gazettee read as hereunder: Since the boundries are speciﬁed in the gazettee notiﬁcation, the petitioner is not entitled to collect aseelu from the persons carrying on trade within the speciﬁed boundries. It goes without saying that the petitioner is entitled to collect aseelu as per the proceedings dated 18.4.2008 issued by the respondent- Corporation from the traders who have been carrying on business outside the P.V.K.Naidu market boundaries. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent-Corporation not to interfere with the collection of aseelu from the traders who have been carrying on the business outside the P.V.K.Naidu market premises in pursuance of the proceedings dated 18.4.2008 issued by the respondent- Corporation. No costs. 30th September, 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.12549 OF 2008 30T H SEPTEMBER, 2008