APHC010394012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Monday, the seventeenth The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Between: Tappal Shaik Karishma The State of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the petitioners: A.Sasikantha Phani Counsel for the respondents: 1. G.P. for Agriculture 2. Gangisetty Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural Marketing Committees The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) seventeenth day of November two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi W.P.No.20354 of 2025 Tappal Shaik Karishma … Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: A.Sasikantha Phani respondents: G.P. for Agriculture Gangisetty Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural Marketing Committees The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] day of November two thousand and twenty five … Petitioner Respondents Gangisetty Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural 2 BSB, J W.P.No.20354 of 2025 O R D E R: This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue an order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, to declare the action of the respondents Nos.2 to 4 in confirming the auction process vide Roc.No. 07/2024 to the Shop No. 10 situated at Gurramkonda sub-Market Committee of Valmikipuram Market Committee as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequential direction to set aside the said auction and to consider the representations of the petitioner orally made since the date of the auction and thereafter and finally on 27.06.2025. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The writ petitioner was registered as buyer under the name and style of T.S.A.Tomato buyer to trade in fruits and vegetables in the Market Yard, Gurramkonda of A.M.C., Valmikipuram. The writ petitioner represented to the Secretary, Sub-Market Committee, Valmikipuram for allocation of the vacant shop No.10 in the Sub-market Committee Area, Gurramkonda. The Secretary endorsed the same for approval of the Chairman, A.M.C., Gurramkonda. The petitioner submitted another representation to the Chairman of the Committee for allocation of the said shop. For the reasons best known to the authorities, the proposed allocation has been postponed from time to time on the pretext of proceedings pending before the Court. While the representation of the petitioner for allocation of the shop and W.P.No.4498 of 2024 filed by the same writ petitioner seeking declaration of the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to participate in the public auction for allotment of shop No.10 is illegal etc. are pending, some individuals, with the help of local influencers from political and social streams, obtained trade licence with a premeditated intention unduly escalating the monthly rent of shop No.10. In fact, those who obtained licences just to participate in the auction without even carrying any trade 3 BSB, J W.P.No.20354 of 2025 in the Sub-market Committee area. While so, the respondent authorities have been directing the petitioner to pay rental amount as per the proceedings of the confirmation of auction. The petitioner appraised the authorities to consider her case in the context of prevailing circumstances and reconsider the monthly rent of the said shop within the limitations of the discretion vested on the Committee. Many times, the petitioner made oral representations also to the Secretary and Chairman of the Committee. That apart, the petitioner submitted written representation dated 27.06.2025, received on 30.06.2025. As there is no response from the authorities, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Along with the writ petition, an interim application was filed seeking direction to the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition. 4. It is found that there is no complete set procedure to allot shop in any A.M.C. This lacuna was highlighted before this High Court in J.Nabi Rasool Vs Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad and others 1 , wherein the observations made by this Court at paragraph Nos.5 and 6 read as below: “5. It is somewhat astounding to note that the respondents appear to have not been following the transparent method of putting the shops to auction. This is quite evident from the proceeding in Roc.No.77/2012, dated 19-06-2012, issued by the Regional Joint Director of Marketing, Kadapa, wherein he has referred to the instructions, dated 19-03-2012, of the Commissioner of Agriculture and Marketing, and directed allotment of nine newly constructed shops to the commission agents, who were in unauthorized occupation of the same. One 1 2016(1) ALD 272 4 BSB, J W.P.No.20354 of 2025 is really at a loss to know as to how the shops, constructed by an Agricultural Market Committee with State funds, are allowed to be unauthorisedly occupied by private persons. It is a matter of grave concern that instead of evicting the unauthorized occupants, the Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing issues instructions to his subordinate officials to regularize such unauthorsied occupation. Such procedure falls foul of the established principle that the State largesses need to be distributed through public auction as far as possible. Yeilding to the demands of unauthorised occupants, as in the present case, places premium on lawlessness. Since regularization of allotment of those shops is not the subject matter of this Writ Petition, this Court refrains from interfering with the same. However, respondent No.1 is directed to revisit the decision taken by him and ensure that allotment of public properties is made transparently without succumbing to the pressure being brought by unscrupulous elements of the society. This Court also finds the stand taken by respondent No.2 in the counter- affidavit that if the petitioner pays the arrears, they will allot shop No.34 to him as wholly unsavoury. Respondents do not appear to have become wiser atleast after the order in WP.No.10178 of 2011 was passed. In the absence of any specific method laid down for allotment of public properties, holding public auction is the best method. (See Ram and Shyam Co., vs. State of Haryana, (1985) 3 SCC 267, and Meerut Development Authority vs. Association of Management Studies, (2009) 6 SCC 171). 6. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed with the direction to the respondents to consider allotment of shops in the Market yards by holding public auction.” 5 BSB, J W.P.No.20354 of 2025 5. By then, the Circular in Rc.II(2)2425/87 dated 20.12.1990 had not been placed before the High Court. The instructions in the Circular are as follows: “The following uniform norms and procedures shall be followed by all the Market Committees in the allotment of shop-cum-godown in the Market Yards. 1. The rent of the shops-cum-godown shall be originally fixed by the Executive Engineer (Marketing) concerned which shall be treated as upset lease amount. 2. The shops-cum-godown shall be let out on lease by auction in the presence of Joint Director of Marketing Committee. 3. If the highest bid amount for lease is over and above the rent fixed by the Executive Engineer (M) concerned, the Market Committee is authorized to confirm the bid at its level and shops-cum-godown may be allotted to the person who bids for the highest lease amount. 4. If the bid amount is less than the rent fixed by the Executive Engineer (M) concerned, the proposal shall be submitted to Commissioner & Director of Marketing for confirming the bid and for approving the rent. 5. If the lease amount struck by auction is lesser than the rent fixed by the Executive Engineer (M) concerned, then the lease deed shall be executed only after the rent is approved by Commissioner & Director of Marketing. 6. It shall be made clear that the auction is not for outright sale but only for fixation of rent on monthly basis that whoever bids for the highest lease amount, the shops-cum-godown will be let out to him. 7. The shops-cum-godown shall be allotted and lease deed shall be entered between the Market Committee and the concerned trader as per the Model Lease Deed enclosed. 6 BSB, J W.P.No.20354 of 2025 8. In the auction to be conducted for arriving at the highest lease amount only licenced traders shall be allowed to participate in such auction. The above procedure shall be followed scrupulously and any deviation will entail disciplinary action against the defaulters.” Even these instructions are incomplete. 6. It is felt that it is appropriate to give suitable directions to the authorities concerned to formulate rules with regard to various aspects relating to allotment / grant or cancellation of lease of immovable properties, such as, shops, godowns, vacant sites etc. of A.M.Cs., such as, period of lease; renewal of lease; re-allotment on compassionate ground to family member of a deceased allottee; conditions and procedure; qualifications and disqualifications to bid etc. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for A.M.C. placed on record a copy of the written instructions of Secretary Grade-III, A.M.C., Valmikipuram vide R.O.C.No.07 of 2025 dated 01.08.2025, wherein it was mentioned that shop No.10 had been allotted to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.1,27,100/- w.e.f. 15.02.2025 in the open auction conducted in the presence of the Regional Joint Director of Marketing, Kadapa on 15.02.2025 and that the petitioner had concluded an agreement on the same day paying deposit of Rs.3,81,300/- and agreeing to pay the rent on 5th day of every month, but she had failed to pay the rent from 15.02.2025 to 30.07.2025 inspite of several notices issued and therefore, the possession of the shop No.10 had been taken over on 30.07.2025 under a panchnama. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be given a chance to participate in the open re-auction if conducted for the same shop No.10, if the relief prayed in the writ petition is not granted. 7 BSB, J W.P.No.20354 of 2025 9. In the representation dated 27.06.2025, written in vernacular language (Telugu), the writ petitioner requested to review the earlier confirmation of bid in auction dated 15.02.2025 and determine the monthly rent as per the prevailing price or take appropriate action without causing the petitioner undue loss. According to the petitioner, the other bidders who participated in the auction held on 15.12.2025 acted with premeditated intention to harm the petitioner commercially and financially and unnecessarily increased the amount of monthly rent for shop No.10. As such, she requested to review and re-consider the amount of rent. Admittedly, the petitioner voluntarily participated in the auction held on 15.02.2025 and agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.1,27,100/- and entered into a lease agreement on the same day, but, thereafter expressed her grievance as noted above. As there is no discretion left to the authorities to alter the monthly rent accepted in the auction, in derogation of the rights of the other bidders who participated in the auction, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that her request for review should be accepted by the authorities concerned. Admittedly, the possession of the shop has been taken back by the authorities on 30.07.2025 under a panchnama. 10. The learned Standing Counsel for A.M.C. submitted that as the petitioner committed default in payment of monthly rent as agreed, she may not be permitted to participate in fresh auction. 11. Since there is no rule of law prohibiting a defaulter from participating in bid, if a fresh auction is held in respect of the shop No.10, the petitioner can participate, subject to the rules and practices applicable for conducting auction afresh on cancellation of existing allotment. 12. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to participate in the fresh auction to be conducted for allotment of the shop No.10, subject to the rules and practices 8 BSB, J W.P.No.20354 of 2025 applicable for conducting auction afresh on cancellation of existing allotment. The respondent No.1 may consider to formulate rules with regard to the above stated aspects within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The rules and procedures covered by other laws may also be taken as a guide to prepare these rules, There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ Dt.17.11.2025 B. S. BHANUMATHI, PNV