THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated: 25-01-2011 WRIT APPEAL Nos. 314 AND 250 OF 2010 WRIT APPEAL No. 314 OF 2010 Between: Ramesh Sarvariya and eight others ... APPELLANTS AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and three others …RESPONDENTS WRIT APPEAL No. 250 OF 2010 Between: Ashraf Ali and 14 others ... APPELLANTS AND Warangal Municipal Corporation, rep., by its Commissioner, Warangal, Warangal District …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL Nos. 314 AND 250 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) WRIT APPEAL No. 314 OF 2010 The writ Court having declined interference with the auction notice dated 20-03-2010 in Writ Petition No. 6821 of 2010 relating to the municipal shops situate at Warangal, therefore this writ appeal on the ground that as per the agreement, the appellants – writ petitioners were entitled to seek extension of term and retain the possession of the shops. Reckoned as per agreement, possession had to be surrendered on 31-03-2010. In this behalf reference becomes relevant to one of the conditions of the agreement wherein the appellants have undertaken to vacate the premises after expiry of the agreement period. Not only that, the agreement also empowers the Municipal Corporation to determine before expiry of term if it is in the public interest. In this behalf, it is pertinent to mention that the appellants have taken the property into possession for a specific period against a sum of Rs.3,600/- per month, whereas in the auction, two of the appellants – writ petitioners have offered Rs.20,300/- per month and Rs.24,700/- per month for shops 6 and 7 which makes it clear that the capacity of the premises to earn is much more than the amount on which appellants have taken the shops and going by Clause 2(b) of the agreement coupled with the offer made by the appellants, we have no hesitation to say that determination of the agreements is in the public interest. Learned counsel has also made reference to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 2992 and 455 of 1976, dated 14-12-1976, mandate whereof holds petitioner therein as a licensee and not a lessee, therefore does not help the appellants. More so, the contents of the agreement make it a case of licence and not the lease. Learned counsel for the appellants has also contended that Section 534 (c) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 does not apply to the premises because it is not a market, but the definition assigned to the municipal markets in Section 525 negates his argument which makes it manifest that all the markets and slaughter houses which belong to or are maintained by the Corporation fall within the definition of the municipal market. Significantly, there is no dispute about the proprietorship of the market and admittedly it belongs to the Municipal Corporation. Apart from that, the appellants have participated in the auction and two of them are the highest bidders. In the aforementioned backdrop, we find no cause to interfere with the impugned judgment. Dismissed. WRIT APPEAL No. 250 OF 2010 The only difference between the case on hand and Writ Appeal No. 314 of 2010 is the location of the property which in the case on hand is Municipal Shopping Complex, near Head Post Office, Warangal and admittedly forms subject matter of Writ Appeal No. 314 of 2010 arising out of Writ Petition No. 6821 of 2010, therefore the same reasoning prevails. Dismissed on the reasons detailed in Writ Appeal No. 314 of 2010. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 25-01-2011 K. Shyleshi