HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.29806 of 2011 Date of Order:17.11.2011 Between: Pulluri Shankar and others ..Petitioners and The Commissioner, Bhongir Municipality. ..Respondent The Court made the following Order: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PEITTION No.29806 of 2011 ORDER :- This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the notice No.A/344/2010-11, dated 12.09.2011, issued by the respondent as illegal and arbitrary and consequently stay the auction notification No.A2/497/2011, dated 29.10.2011 issued by the respondents. 2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this writ petition, are as follows:- In the year 1996, all the petitioners raised individually small buddy shops on the roadside in Bhuvangiri Town. Subsequently, the Government has widened the road. In the road widening, total 171 persons lost their buddy shops. The petitioners are some of the persons out of 171 persons who lost their buddy shops. The Government with a view to rehabilitate 171 persons, constructed a shopping complex called “Elimineti Madhavareddy Shopping Complex” in the year 2000, wherein the Government has allotted 115 shops to 115 persons out of 171 persons, who lost their buddy shops in the road widening. The remaining persons from serial numbers 116 to 171 were kept under the reserved category. While granting shops to 115 persons, the Government imposed a condition that if any person fails to take possession the allotted shops, that will be allotted to the persons in the reserved category as per the list prepared by the Government. All the petitioners have participated in the allotment of shops conducted on 19.06.2000 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir, Nalgonda District and they have been allotted the shops vide orders No.C/3600/1997, dated 19.06.2000 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Since then, the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective shops and are paying the agreed lease amount regularly without fail. It is further submitted that for the last two years, the respondent authority has stopped collecting the monthly rent from the petitioners in the shopping complex including other shop leaseholders. While the matter stood thus, the respondent authorities came to the petitioners in the 4th week of October, 2011 and issued Notice Nos.A/344/2010-11, dated 12.09.2011, directing the petitioners to pay the due amount within three days from the date of receipt the notice and to vacate the premises within 30 days, by making a reference to the G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 05.02.2011. Even according to the said G.O., the petitioners are entitled for renewal of lease of immovable property as per clause No.4 of the said G.O. Immediately after serving the notice, dated 12.09.2011, the respondent issued Auction Notification No.A2/497/2011, dated 29.10.2011, published on 30.10.2011 in the local newspaper inviting the general public to submit applications to participate in the auction of leasehold rights for the shops 1 to 115 of Elimineti Madhavareddy Shopping Complex where the petitioners along with others were in possession. The said notices issued by the respondent are not legal. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 05.02.2011 of Municipal Administration and Urban Development (J1) Department, the petitioners are entitled to continue as tenants for a period of 25 years; that in the road widening programme they have lost their shops and they were allotted shops in the commercial complex as a displaced persons; and, therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned notification. 4. On the other hand, learned standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contends that there is no lease subsisting; that no prior sanction was obtained from the Government to continue the petitioners on lease for more than three years; that for the last 11 years the petitioners were continuing in the premises in question, the Commissioner has got every right to lease the premises by conducting auction so that the municipality would get the best price; and hence, he prays to dismiss the petition. 5. Section 194 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for brevity, “the Act”) reads as under:- “194. Power to evict certain persons from municipal premises:- (1) If the Commissioner is satisfied- (a) that a person authorised to occupy any premises vesting in or belonging to, the council has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act- (i) … (ii) … (iii) … (b) That any person without the previous permission or licence from the council is in unauthorised occupation of any premises of the council. He may, notwithstanding anything in any law for time being in force, by notice served by post, or by affixing a copy of it on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of such premises, or in such other manner as may be, prescribed, order that such person as well as any other person, who may be in occupation of the whole or any part of the premises shall vacate the same within one month of the date of the service of the notice, and where such notice relates to the land shall also remove any building or other construction or anything deposited on it. The above provision makes it clear that the commissioner has got power to evict an unauthorised person after following the procedure. 6. Section 277(4) of the Act, reads as under:- The council may lease any land, shop, godown, building or terrace of a building owned by it and situated anywhere in the municipality for any period not exceeding five years at a time and subject to such terms and conditions as the council may deem fit; Provided that it shall be competent for the council to grant, with the prior sanction of the Government, any such lease for a period exceeding five years but not exceeding twenty five years at a time. 7. From the above provision, it is clear that if the lease is for more than five years and less than 25 years, prior sanction of the Government to renew the lease is mandatory. Admittedly, the Municipality has not obtained any prior sanction from the Government so as to continue the petitioners in the said premises after completion of five years period of lease. Therefore, when they are acting in accordance with the Act and the rules made there under, their actions cannot be interfered with. None of the right of the petitioners is infringed or violated by issuing the tender notification. If the petitioners are so advised, they can also participate in the open auction. The purpose of conducting open auction is to get a best price on the tenanted premises by the Municipality so that it can utilise those amounts for some other purpose. Therefore, the impugned auction notice is not contrary to the provisions of the Act and the rules made there under. 8. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J November 17, 2011 lmv HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.29806 of 2011 Date: 17.11.2011 LMV