APHC010308762025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [0] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT WRIT PETITION NO: 15402/2025 Between: Varahi Vijaya Beri Fun Fare Exhibition ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOTHA LEELA GANESH RAGHAVENDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 15402/2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondent No. 2 in not considering the Petitioner’s representation dated 11.06.2025 and trying to cease the exhibition highhandedly without following due process of law as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Petitioner was granted license to conduct exhibition for a period of 45 days from 08.08.2025 to 21.06.2025 at the Municipal Ground, Kadapa, beside the Municipal Corporation High School (Urdu Boys) vide Proceedings dated 09.05.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that due to heavy rains and floods, he could not use the leased ground for conducting exhibition and therefore, he gave a representation to the Respondent No.2 for extension of the license period for a period of 10 days. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Corporation submits that the said lease is only for 45 days and the Respondent No.2 cannot extend the lease period and the lease period has to be extended 3 by the Standing Committee of the Municipal Council. He denied the contention of the Petitioner that ground could not be used due to heavy rains and floors and contended that rains were only for about two days and those two days only, the Petitioner did not use the said ground for conducting exhibition. 5. Having heard the respective counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner cannot claim for any extension as a matter of right and there is no such clause provided as a right in the terms of the lease given to the Petitioner. The pre-requisite for the direction to consider the representation is that there should be a existence of at least a semblance of a right. In the absence of such right, no direction can be given to the Authorities to consider the Representation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to direct the Respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J. Date: 25-06-2025 eha 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WP No.15402 of 2025 Dt.25-06-2025 U eha