HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITON No.20028 OF 2007 ORDER: The Palasa - Kasibugga Municipality, the 1st respondent herein, constructed a complex of 107 shops upon a land owned by it. The petitioner is an Association of Vegetable Vendors in the Municipality. According to it, in a substantial part of the land, upon which the complex was constructed, vegetable vendors were doing business and they were asked to vacate by giving an undertaking to the effect that they would be accommodated with the newly constructed complex. The petitioner contends that contrary to the assurance given by the Municipality, the shops were constructed on the entire space and no shops are earmarked for vegetable vendors. It challenges the action of the respondents in not reserving any area for the purpose of vegetable market exclusively for vegetable vendors as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act. 2. The 1st respondent filed a counter – affidavit. 3. It is stated that all the 107 shops were put to auction and at no point of time, any shops were earmarked exclusively for vegetable vendors. Reference is also made to the resolutions passed by the counsel from time to time. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality. 5. Though the respondents deny the averments of the petitioner that the assurance was given to them to earmark some place while constructing new shopping complex, the fact that substantial number of vegetable vendors were undertaking activity upon the land before the complex was constructed is not denied. As many as 107 shops are constructed. Vending of vegetable happens to be one of the important activities and in a way, a basic service to the residents of the Municipality. However, the traders in vegetables cannot compete with the traders undertaking other activities. The profit margins and the nature of activity to be undertaken by the vegetable vendors is substantially different. The record discloses that the Municipality recognized its obligation towards the vegetable vendors, particularly, those who were given assurance. Through auction, the highest bids were accepted. The Commissioner, however, addressed a letter to the District Collector taking objection to such a course of action. Earning of profits cannot be the only criterion for the Municipality. It should provide the amenities for various categories of people as well as traders. This Court is of the view that seven shops in the complex can be earmarked exclusively for being leased out to the vegetable vendors. 6. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that, a. In case there exists seven vacant shops as of now, the 1st respondent Municipality shall earmark the same for being leased out exclusively to the vegetable vendors and participation in the auction shall be by the vegetable vendors alone. b. A specific condition shall be imposed to the effect that no other activity other than vending of vegetables shall be undertaken in the shops that are leased. c. In case, the vacant shops are not immediately available, soon after the term of lease in favour of the existing lessees is over, the vacant possession of seven shops assumed and the exercise indicated in Clause - A shall be undertaken. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J March 31, 2011 KTL