APHC010345362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY. THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 17613 OF 2025 Between: 1. Ganapa Rama Rao, S/o. PeddaKoteswara Rao, Aged about 66 Occ: Business, Shop Nos.46 and 53, Kakaraparthi Bhavannarayana Municipal Corporation Commercial Complex, Vijayawada- 520 001, NTR District. 2. ShaKamalesh Kumar Jain, S/o. Ramanilal aged about 48 years. Shop No.54, KakaraparthiBhavannarayana Municipal Corporation Commercial Complex, Vijayawada- 520 001, NTR District. 3. T.Mohan, S/o. Parasaramaiah aged about 50 Kakaraparthi Bhavannarayana Complex, Vijayawada- 520 001, NTR District. 4. T.Gangadhar, S/o. Parasaramaiah aged about 52 years. Shop No.9 Kakaraparthi Bhavannarayana Complex, Vijayawada- 520 001, NTR District. 5. G.PavanKumar, S/o. Subba Rao aged about 48 years. Shop Nos.47 and 52, KakaraparthiBhavannarayana Municipal Corporation Commercial Complex, Vijayawada- 520 001, NTR District. 6. Lera Ram Devaji, S/o. Deva Ram Ji aged about 48 years. Shop No.49, Kakaraparthi Bhavannarayana Municipal Corporation Commercial Complex Vijayawada- 520 001, NTR District. years. years. Shop No.50, Municipal Corporation Commercial Municipal Corporation Commercial r"" ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur(Dist) AP. 2. The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Vijayawada NTR District. Department, Secretariat, ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Notice RcN 1-17049/1997 dt.27.05.2025 issued on behalf of the Respondent No.2 non-est in the eye of law besides directing 2^^ respondent not to evict the Petitioners from their respective shops premises at Kakaraparthi Bhavannarayana Municipal Corporation Commercial Complex, Vijayawada-1 either by seizing the shop premises or interfering with our possession of the respective shops, declaring their action as illegal and ultra vires to Art., 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India besides in violation of A.P. Municipal Corporation Act directing 2 respondent not to proceed further. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 nd Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Notice RcN 1-17049/1997 dt.27.05.2025 issued in the name of the Respondent No.2 directing not to disposes the Petitioners from the shops situate in KakaraparthiBhavannarayana Municipal Corporation Commercial Complex, Vijayawada-1. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI MOTUPALLI VITTAL RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI S.V.S.S. SIVARAM, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY The Court made the following order: APHC010345362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SMS J- [3457] TUESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 17613/2025 Between; 1.GANAPA RAMA RAO,, S/0. PEDDAKOTESWARARAO AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,OCC BUSINESS, SHOP NOS.46 AND 53, KAKARAPARTHIBHAVANNARAYANA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, VIJAYAWADA- 520 001, NTR DISTRICT. 2.SHAKAMALESH KUMAR JAIN,, S/0. RAMANILAL AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. SHOP N0.54, KAKARAPARTHIBHAVANNARAYANA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, VIJAYAWADA- 520 001, NTR DISTRICTLIAJI 3.T.MOHAN, S/O. PARASARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. SHOP KAKARAPARTHIBHAVANNARAYANA NO.50, CORPORATION COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, VIJAYAWADA- 520 001 NTR DISTRICT MUNICIPAL 4.T.GANGADHAR,, S/O. PARASARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. SHOP N0.9, KAKARAPARTHIBHAVANNARAYANA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, VIJAYAWADA- 520 001, NTR DISTRICT 5.G.PAVANKUMAR, S/O. SUBBA RAO AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, SHOP NOS.47 AND 52, KAKARAPARTHIBHAVANNARAYANA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, VIJAYAWADA- 520 001, NTR DISTRICT 6.LERA RAM DEVAJI,, S/O. DEVA RAM Jl AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. SHOP N0.49, KAKARAPARTHIBHAVANNARAYANA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION COMMERCIAL COMPLEX VIJAYAWADA- 520 001, !► 2 NTR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARY, DEVELOPMENT AMARAVTHI, GUNTUR(DIST) AP.. 2.THE VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAWADA NTRDISTRICT. REP.BY PRINCIPAL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEPARTMENT. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUD, ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Notice RcN 1- 17049/1997 dt.27.05.2025 issued on behalf of the Respondent No.2 non-est in the eye of law besides directing 2nd respondent not to evict the Petitioners from their respective shops premises at Kakaraparthi Bhavannarayana Municipal Corporation Commercial Complex, Vijayawada-1 either by seizing the shop premises or interfering with our possession of the respective shops, declaring their action as illegal and ultra vires to Art., 14, 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution of India besides in violation of A.P. Municipal Corporation Act directing 2nd respondent not to proceed further lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the Notice RcN 1-17049/1997 dt.27.05.2025 issued in the name of the Respondent No.2 directing not to disposes the Petitioners from the shops situate in KakaraparthiBhavannarayana Municipal Corporation Commercial Complex, Vijayawada-1, Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.MOTUPALLI VITTAL RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP w 3 The Court made the following Order: Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the successful tenderers for shops which were auctioned on lease by the 2 respondent. The 2^^ respondent had conducted the auction for lease of shops vide public notification dated 16.04.1999. It is submitted that the petitioners have received notices from the 2'''^ respondent, calling upon the petitioners to vacate the premises within one month from the date of receipt of notice, as the 2^^ respondent intends to conduct a fresh auction for the shops. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had participated in the tender and paid a substantial amount, apart from regularly paying rents in accordance with the terms of the 2""^ respondent and also paid the enhanced rent periodically, as determined by the 2'^'^ respondent. It is now submitted that the 2"^^ respondent has issued these notices without any reference to the reason why the petitioners are sought to be vacated. Learned Standing Counsel for 2 Section 148(3) of the Municipal Corporation Act does not empower the Commissioner to extend a lease beyond 25 years. Learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Kotha Sambasiva Rao vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others^ The learned Division Bench had held as follows; nd 2. nd 3. respondent submits that 4. “22. Section 148 only confers power on the Commissioner, and does not obligate him to grant lease. It is always open to the Commissioner not to grant lease of the immovable properties of the Corporation if, in his opinion, these properties should be put to use by 2017 (5) ALO 94 4 the Corporation itself. Even if he chooses to grant lease, it is open to the Commissioner to decide whether the lease should be granted for a period of 12 months, or for a period beyond 12 months and below three years, or for a period beyond three years upto 25 years. While the Commissioner is empowered to decide the period for which a lease is to be granted, the restriction placed by Section 148(2) and (3) would require the Commissioner, even if he decides to grant lease for a period beyond 12 months and below 3 years, or above 3 years but below 25 years, to obtain prior sanction of the Standing Committee, and the previous sanction of the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation and the Government of Andhra Pradesh, respectively. No right is conferred any person to claim that he should either be granted a lease, or his lease should be automatically renewed periodically upto 25 years, by the Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. These are all matters for the Commissioner in his discretion, and for just and valid reasons, to decide. 40. We find considerable force in the submission of Sri R. Sudheer, Learned Standing Counsel for the VMC, that a decision, whether or not to grant lease of immovable properties of the Corporation, is required to be taken by the Commissioner with regards each of these properties; while the Corporation may decide to of these properties itself, it may choose to lease some of the other properties for a certain duration; the duration, for which these immovable properties should be given on lease, is to be determined by the Commissioner bearing in mind the future needs of the Corporation; even when leases are granted it is for the Commissioner to decide, bearing in mind the object of maximising the revenues of the Corporation, whether it would be beneficial to extend the lease to the very same lessee or to conduct a public auction for grant of leasehold rights; and, as the needs of the Corporation with respect to each of its properties would differ from one to another, the petitioner is not entitled to claim parity with regards extension of lease with others who may have been granted extension of lease by the respondent-corporation." on use some 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2'"'^ respondent. Considering the submissions made, this Court is not inclined to interfere in this matter, leaving it open for the petitioners to participate in the fresh tender which is to be conducted by the 2"'* respondent. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6. 7. 8. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, State of Andhra Amaravathi, Guntur (Dist) AP. and Urban Development Secretariat, Velagapudi, Pradesh, 2.The Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada NTR District. 3. One CC to Sri Motupalli Vittal Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Admn and Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, SC for Municipality (OPUC) 6. Two CD Copies Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:15/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 17613 OF 2025 T 13 AUG 2025 j? ntSectioux^^ *» DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS