IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 6457 of 2008 Between: 1 Naugapu Prabhakara Rao S/o. Bheema Rao R/o. Kasibugga, Srikakulam District. 2 Joga Srinivasa Rao S/o. Appa Rao R/o. Vivekananda Colony, Kasibugga, Srikakulam District. 3 Sarvana Ramesh S/o. Mallaiah R/o. Pondara Street, Kasibugga, Srikakulam District. 4 Simhadri Saraswati W/o. Gangaiah R/o. New Colony, Kasibugga, Srikakulam District. 5 Challa Ratnavalli W/o. Ramesh R/o. Tilak Nagar, Kasibugga, Srikakulam District. 6 Potnuru Nageswara Rao S/o. Sreerama Murthy R/o. H.No.11-1-35/1, New Colony, Kasibugga, Srikakulam District. 7 Pala Maheswara Rao S/o.Ramulu R/o. SHivaji Nagar, Kasibugga, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Palasa Kasibugga Municipality Palasa, Srikakulam District, Rep. by its Commissioner. .....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 a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondent in not handing over possession of the shop rooms allotted in favour of the petitioners situated at Palasa-Kasibugga Municipality Complexes in the auction conducted on 22 August 2007 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to handover possession the shop rooms allotted in favour of petitioners as shown in Annexure forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri K. Bheema Rao Counsel for the Respondent : Sri S. Nageswara Reddy The Court made the following O R D E R: Heard Sri K. Bheema Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. Nageswara Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Municipality. The writ petitioners have participated in the auctions that were conducted by the respondent – Municipality for the leasehold rights for the shops in the municipal complex constructed by it. The writ petitioners have complied with all the conditions and participated in the auction that was conducted on 22nd August 2007. The bids/offers made by the petitioners are the most competitive. Hence, the Municipal Council passed resolution No. 950 dated 21st July 2007, approving the auction of the leasehold rights and resolved to grant the leasehold rights for the respective shops in favour of the highest bidders, but however, it appears that the matter has been taken up with the District Collector, Srikakulam on 30th August 2007. The reason perhaps that weighed with the Municipality in submitting the matter for consideration of the District Collector is that four other individuals have instituted Writ Petition No. 20028 of 2007 against the very enterprise, undertaken by the Municipality, of constructing a shopping complex and that the said writ petition is still pending consideration of this Court. In view of this issue, the District Collector, in turn, appears to have solicited instructions from the Commissioner and the latter has not yet passed on any instructions. It is obvious that the respondent – Municipality, while realizing the necessity to finalize the leasehold rights in favour of the highest bidders, so as to prevent further loss of revenue to it, has only acted, bona fide, in soliciting instructions from the District Collector, in view of the pendency of Writ Petition No. 20028 of 2007, in which the very question of the right and propriety of construction of municipal shopping complexes was engaging the attention of this Court. However, mere pendency of a case, where there are no contra orders passed, does not entitle the Municipality to hold back the further course of action. When once it had conducted the auction, duly following a fair and transparent procedure and the offers/bids have been made by more than one individual, reflecting the competitiveness of the bidding process, it is only appropriate that the highest bidder should have been conferred the leasehold rights, unless there is good reason for the respondent – Municipality to suspect that the offers made are not reflective of the market prices. In fact, there is no such plea raised by the Municipality either in the counter-affidavit filed in this case or when it took up the matter with the District Collector. I do not find any justification whatsoever for the delay in granting the leasehold rights in favour of the highest bidders for the municipal shopping complexes constructed by the respondent. I, therefore, allow this writ petition and direct the respondent – Municipality to forthwith finalize and confer leasehold rights in favour of the respective highest bidders, duly complying with the rest of the requirements of law. Orders in this regard be passed on or before 30th April 2008. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J) 10th April 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}