THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.30008 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for leasing out the vacant site near Balaji Service Centre at Clock Tower, near Municipal Complex, Kadiri in their endorsement in R.O.C.No.446/2011-41, dated 22.03.2011, and non consideration of the representations, dated 15.03.2011 and 29.06.2011, by respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct respondent No.1 to lease out the said vacant site. 2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner, being an educated unemployee and having no properties, in order to do some petty business, requested respondent No.1 Municipality to let out the aforementioned open space on payment of rent to the Municipality. The Municipality is also bound to provide special schemes for the purpose of upliftment of the weaker section people. There is no provision in the Municipalities Act prohibiting granting of lease of the vacant sites to the eligible weaker section people. So, he made a representation on 25.10.2010 to the Municipality to lease out the vacant site. Respondent No.1 sent a reply on 22.03.2011 stating that as per the orders passed in W.P.No.15198 of 2006, no sites can be given on lease. This Court did not lay any law preventing the Municipality from leasing out their own properties to the public. Hence, he made further representations on 15.03.2011 and 29.06.2011 to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to consider his case, but there was no reply. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner made representations to the respondents to lease out the vacant site near Balaji Service Centre at Clock Tower, near Municipal Complex, Kadiri, but the same were not considered. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 stated that lease of the vacant sites shall not be given to any individual except by way of conducting auction and therefore, there is no infringement of right of the petitioner. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that he made an application to the respondents for leasing out the aforementioned vacant site to him, which belongs to the Municipality. It cannot be given directly to the petitioner because any lease in favour of third person is to be given by conducting a public auction. Therefore, there is no violation or infringement of any legal right of the petitioner. Therefore, the question of considering his representations does not arise. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J 11th November, 2011. AMD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.30008 OF 2011 Date: 11.11.2011 AMD