APHC010614742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 31979/2025 Between: Tushar Chandna ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Sri SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Ld. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 2. Sri A.S.C. Bose, Ld. Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent The Court made the following: -2- W.P. No.31979 OF 2025 Date of order:18.11.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.31979 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing notice calling upon the petitioner to handover the vacant possession of shops for facilitating the 2ndrespondent to conduct a fresh auction and for allotment of shops. The petitioner was also called upon to pay the entire outstanding arrears of rent, if any, and to pay the electricity bills, and to hand over the keys of the shop, along with proof of payment of the electricity bills, within 30 days from the date of the impugned notice. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s name was mutated in the records of the 2nd respondent as a lessee and that the 25 years period of lease, which is generally granted insofar as Municipal Shop Complex is yet to expire. It is submitted that the respondent authorities cannot call upon the petitioners to vacate the shops and handover the vacant physical possession before the expiry of 25 years lease period. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the 25 years lease period has been completed long back. It is submitted that the petitioner mutated his name, and the mutation of the name of the petitioner by the respondent authority cannot be considered as a fresh lease, which would have to be considered for the fresh term -3- W.P. No.31979 OF 2025 Date of order:18.11.2025 of 25 years from the date of mutation. It is further submitted that this Court considered several writ petitions where the municipal authority had issued similar notices calling upon the petitioners therein to vacate and handover the possession of shops to enable the respondent authority to conduct a fresh auction. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the material on record. 5. Considering the orders passed by this Court in other writ petitions, the possession of the petitioner shall not be disturbed by the 2nd respondent till finalization of auction proceedings. The petitioner is at liberty to participate in the auction, which is proposed to be conducted by the 2nd respondent. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall handover the vacant possession of the shops by the date of finalization of the auction proceedings in the event the petitioner is unsuccessful bidder. 6. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall clear the outstanding arrears of rent and the electricity bills, if any, due, before the petitioner participates in the auction proceedings. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of without costs. 8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BV