1 APHC010009532025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NOS: 864 and 3160 of 2025 WRIT PETITION NO: 864/2025 Between: Vasamsetti Naresh and others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) WRIT PETITION NO: 3160/2025 Between: Vasamsetti Naresh and others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA 2 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 3 COMMON ORDER : These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: W.P.No.864 of 2025 “.... to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioners shops and trying to evict/dispossess them from shops vide 1) Shop No.2 Block No.2, (2) Shop No.07 Block No.2, (3) Shop No.05 Block No 02, (4) Shop No.01 Block No.2, (5) Shop No.15 Block No.02, (6) Shop No.12 Block No.01 and (7) Shop No.13 Block No.01 situated at Five Carts Marker, Big Shops, Block No.01 Complex at Alcot Gardens, Rajamahendravaram as illegal, irrational, arbitrary, baseless and in violation of principles of natural justice, and in violation of articles 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of the India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners shops vide 1) Shop No.2 Block No.2, (2) Shop No.07 Block No.2, (3) Shop No.05 Block No 02, (4) Shop No.01 Block No.2, (5) Shop No.15 Block No.02, (6) Shop No.12 Block No.01 and (7) Shop No.13 Block No.01 situated at Five Carts Marker, Big Shops, Block No.01 Complex at Alcot Gardens, Rajamahendravaram…...” W.P.No.3160 of 2025 “.... to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in conducting auction to our shops i.e., 1) Shop No.2 Block No.2, (2) Shop No.07 Block No.2, (3) Shop No.05 Block No 02, (4) Shop No.01 Block No.2, (5) Shop No.15 Block No.02, (6) Shop No.12 Block No.01 and (7) Shop No.13 Block No.01 situated at Five Carts Marker, Big Shops, Block No.01 Complex at Alcot Gardens, Rajamahendravaram as illegal irrational arbitrary baseless and in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of articles 19 21 and 300A of the Constitution of the India and consequently to direct the respondents not to conduct auction for the shops i.e., 1) Shop No.2 Block No.2, (2) Shop No.07 Block No.2, (3) Shop No.05 Block No 02, (4) Shop No.01 Block No.2, (5) Shop No.15 Block No.02, (6) Shop No.12 Block No.01 and (7) Shop No.13 Block No.01 situated at Five Carts Marker, Big Shops, Block No.01 Complex at Alcot Gardens, Rajamahendravaram …...” 4 Since the petitioners and the subject properties in the present writ petitions are one and the same, these two writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The brief facts of the cases are as follows: a) It is the case of the petitioners that they have taken the subject shops i.e., 20, 7, 5, 1, 15 in Block No.2, shop Nos.12 and 13 in Block No.1 respectively in Five Cart Market, Municipal Shopping Complex at Alcot Gardents, Rajamahendravaram on lease and have been running their petty businesses in the said shops by paying monthly rents and taxes regularly to the respondent Corporation. They spent huge amounts for renovating the shops. b) While the matter being so, the 2nd respondent issued notice dated Nil.10.2023 directing them to vacate the shops and also handed over the same to the Corporation by paying the dues as the lease period of 25 years has expired. The said notice was received by the petitioners on 02.11.2023 and immediately thereafter the petitioners approached the 2nd respondent along with necessary documents and requested the 2nd respondent to drop all further proceedings of eviction. However, the authorities continued interference. c) In such circumstances, the petitioners filed W.P.No.864 of 2025 before this Court questioning the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess them from the subject shops. In the said writ petition this Court 5 passed an interim order on 10.01.2025 directing the respondent Corporation not to dispossess the petitioners till 23.01.2025 taking into consideration the instructions submitted by the respondent counsel that as the petitioners’ lease period has expired, in order to issuance of new lease the respondents have issued auction notice. But, however, as no bidders have participated in the said auction, the auction could not take place. But however, the respondent Corporation was proposing to issue the fresh auction notice. In view of the same, the respondent Corporation was granted liberty to issue fresh auction notice for issuance of new lease. d) At that stage the Corporation has issued auction notice dated 25.01.2025 proposing to conduct auction for the subject shops from 04.02.2025 to 10.02.2025. Upon bringing the same to the notice of this Court, this Court vide interim order dated 29.01.2025 in W.P.No.864 of 2025 granted liberty to the petitioners to participate in the proposed auction scheduled to be conducted from 04.02.2025 to 10.02.2025. However, challenging the said auction notice, the petitioners filed this writ petition. 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 informed this Court that because of the MLC elections, the proposed auction could not take place between 04.02.2025 to 10.02.2025. As of today, no date is fixed for conducting the auction of the said shops claimed by the petitioners herein. 6 3. As per the said instructions submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 it can be understood that though the respondents proposed to conduct auction for the subject shops on two occasions they could not succeed due to various reasons. But, however, it is an admitted fact that as on today the petitioners are in possession of the said subject shops. 4. In view of the same, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners’ subject shops till the subject shops are leased out in favour of third parties. However, the petitioners are also at liberty to participate in the auction once the respondent Corporation issued auction notice for the subject shops. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 11.02.2025 KGR