IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4612 of 2010 Between: Shaik Ibrahim S/o. Shaik Mohammad ..... Petitioner AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another .....Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4612 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in calling for fresh tenders / public auction of the leasehold rights of Gujjala Saraladevi Kalyana Mandapam, Ajit Singh Nagar, Vijayawada, without considering his request for renewal, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner is the leaseholder of Gujjala Saraladevi Kalyana Mandapam, Ajit Singh Nagar in the Municipal limits of Vijayawada and the lease was given to him in 2006 by respondent No.2 – Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. The period of lease was three years and the same was expired by 23-02-2010. The petitioner has submitted a representation to respondent No.2 on 10-02-2010 itself, for renewal of the lease, but respondent No.2 did not give any reply to the petitioner, on such representation. On the other hand, on 24-02-2010, respondent No.2 has called for tenders, inviting bids for grant of lease in respect of the above said Kalyana Mandapam, and the last date for obtaining the tender schedule is 26-02-2010. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that for similarly placed Kalayana Mandapams, respondent No.2 has granted further renewals but insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the lease is not being renewed and tenders were called for, for granting leasehold rights in respect of the Kalyana Mandapam in question. 4. Insofar as renewal of leases to the other Kalyana Mandapams is concerned, such persons in whose names the leases are granted, are not before this Court and the reason is not known for grant of such renewals by respondent No.2. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, even according to him, the lease was only for a period of three years, which was expired by 23-02-2010. In that view of the matter, when respondent No.2 has called for tenders for grant of further lease, it cannot be faulted on any ground. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. 5. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J February 26, 2010. KTL