APHC010286632026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 14953/2026 Between: 1. NALLAMOTHU RAVI KUMAR, S/O. CHANDRAM, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.16-16-90 ALII NAGAR, KOTHAPET, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-522001 (SHOP NO. 3200067). ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522238. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -522004. 3. THE GUNTUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER, KOTHAPET, OPP GANDHI PARK, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522003. 4. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, GUNTUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KOTHAPET, OPP GANDHI PARK, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -522003. ...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 an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent No. 3 in issuing final notice to (Shop No. 3200067) through proceedings RoC. No. 799485/2024/A2-i dated 23.04.2026 for depositing of advance and simultaneously allowing to run an open private6months rent as market in a vacant premises of Guntur Municipal Corporation limits, in Sy. Nos. 297 and 298, near Helipad, Bonthapadu, Beside NH-16, Guntur, without obtaining permission from it as required under Sections 529-532 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, in Guntur Municipal Corporation by the unsuccessful bidders and previous lease holders for being illegal, arbitrary, violative of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, devoid of principles of natural justice dnd unconstitutional and consequently direct the 3rd respondent not to insist for 6 months rental amounts as advance till closure of running an open private market in its jurisdiction i.e, Guntur Municipal Corporation limits by suspending the proceedings Roc. No. 799485/2024/A2-I dated 23.04.2026, and pass such 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent forthwith to initiate appropriate action in vacating an open private market running a vacant premises of Guntur Municipal Corporation limits, in Sy. Nos. 297 and 298, near Helipad, Bonthapadu, Beside NH-16, Guntur, unsuccessful bidders, pending disposal of the above by the writ petition, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the final notice through proceedings Roc. No. 799485/2024/A2-I dated 23.04.2026, pending disposal of the above writ petition, and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VINOD KUMAR PEMMASANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.14953 OF 2026 ORDER : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 23.04.2026, whereby the respondent No.4 called upon the petitioner to deposit six months' rent in advance within a period of seven days. The said notice was issued in continuation of the earlier notice dated 12.03.2026. 2. The impugned notice was issued on the ground that the petitioner had failed to deposit the six months' advance rent as required, and consequently, the petitioner was called upon to deposit the same within a period of three days. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to deposit the rent, subject to the respondents handing over possession of the shop and executing the lease deed. However, it is contended that G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 05.02.2011, prescribes only three months' rent as the advance deposit, inclusive of the security deposit. It is further submitted that the petitioner is unable to conduct business on account of a market allegedly being run by a group of traders without obtaining the requisite permission, which is stated to be in violation of the provisions of the Municipal Act. This Court had directed the petitioner to file a better affidavit explaining the plea that possession of the shop had not been handed over by the 2nd respondent. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed an additional affidavit stating that the 2nd respondent had neither handed over the keys nor delivered possession 4 of the shop to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a direction to set aside the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to deposit six months' advance rent until the alleged unauthorized private market functioning within the jurisdiction of the respondent No.2 is closed. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, on the basis of oral instructions, submits that the petitioner is required to deposit six months' advance rent. It is further submitted that the notification issued by the 2nd respondent required the successful bidder to deposit twelve months' rent as non-refundable goodwill within seven days, in addition to three months' rent as advance. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the impugned final notice merely calls upon the petitioner to deposit six months' advance rent, instead of insisting upon payment of twelve months' rent towards non-refundable goodwill. It is contended that the impugned proceedings are, in fact, beneficial to the petitioner, as the 2nd respondent has dispensed with the earlier requirement of payment of twelve months' rent as non-refundable goodwill. It is further submitted that, by proceedings dated 11.02.2026, the said condition was modified and that the impugned notice has been issued pursuant to such modification. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the material available on record. 5 6. It is for the petitioner to comply with the conditions stipulated in the impugned notice and deposit the requisite amounts for taking forward the proposed lease. The pre-condition sought to be imposed by the petitioner, namely, that respondent Nos.2 and 3 should first shut down the alleged unauthorized private market situated about six kilometres away from the existing Kolli Sarada Vegetable Market before the petitioner deposits the six months' advance rent and takes possession of the shop, is wholly untenable and amounts to stretching the issue beyond acceptable limits. 7. It is always open to the petitioner to commence business in the shop for which the petitioner emerged as the highest bidder. Equally, it is open to the petitioner to withdraw from the bid and explore other alternatives. However, the petitioner cannot insist upon the closure of the alleged private market, situated about six kilometres away from the existing market, as a pre-condition for complying with the terms of the allotment. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has not impleaded any of the traders who are allegedly conducting the said private market as parties to the present writ petition. Consequently, no relief can be granted against such persons in their absence. 8. It is open to the respondent No.2 to allot the shop to the next highest bidder, subject to such bidder fulfilling the conditions prescribed by the respondent No.2. The petitioner is at liberty to submit an application seeking refund of the deposit amount, and upon receipt of such 6 application, the respondent No.2 shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Needless to state that the respondent No.2 is at liberty to take appropriate steps for allotment of the said shop in favour of any third party or the second highest bidder, subject to the second highest bidder depositing a sum of Rs.83,000/-, which shall be refunded to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 08.07.2026 KGM Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned ☑ Reportable Non-reportable ☑ 7 183 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.14953 OF 2026 Dated 08.07.2026 KGM