Dismissed

Yarralagadda Siva Prasad, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Nov 2020WP/20744/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the owner of a leased IML shop outlet contended that shifting the outlet to a third party's premises after lease expiry was illegal and arbitrary. The court held that the commercial lease had expired and the respondent had no obligation to extend it or use the petitioner's premises. The petition was dismissed as having no cause of action.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ petition and any pending miscellaneous applications.

Yarralagadda Siva Prasad, Vs The State… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO WRIT PETITION No.20744 OF 2020

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This Writ Petition is filed being aggrieved by the proposed action of the Respondents 2 to 4 in shifting IML Shop Outlet No. 06003-Avanigadda run by the Government in the petitioner’s premises bearing No. 9-96 of Peddakalepalli Village, Mopidevi Mandal to third party premises said to have been constructed an ACC roofed shed in the land belonging to the Government in R.S.No.730/1 which is part and parcel of PWD Poramboke is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Lease Agreement and Circular dated 06.08.2019.

¶4

The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the premises bearing No. bearing No. 9-96 of Peddakalepalli Village, Mopidevi Mandal with plinth area of measuring 300 Sq.ft., of RCC building and the same was leased to the Respondents 2 to 4 to run the IML Shop Outlet with I.D.No. 06003-Avanigadda which was selected on tender basis on a monthly rent of Rs. 18,000/-. On negotiations made by the committee, the petitioner accepted for reducing the monthly rent of Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- with fond hope that the lease period will be extended for further period of one year. Respondents continued the said shop without extending the Lease Agreement for more than two more months without paying any rents.

¶5

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents 3 and 4 are proposing to shift the IML Outlet with I.D.No. 06003 – Avanigadda, which is being run by the Government in the petitioner’s premises, since one year on lease basis to the premises of one Gandu Durga Rao, who is the Village Convenor of Ruling YSRCP of Peddakalepalli Village, Mopidevi Mandal has constructed

¶6

¶7

a ACC roofed shed in the land belong to the Government in R.S.No. 730/1 which is part and parcel of PWD Poramboke. The Respondents 2 and 3 without any justifiable reasons is trying to shifting the IML Outlet from the petitioner’s premises, without continuing the same in the petitioner’s premises by extending the Lease Agreement is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Circular instructions issued letter vide AP SBCL/ROS/2019 dated 06.08.2019.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in shifting the IML Outlet shop without any notice to the petitioner is illegal and contrary to the Circular instructions issued by the Respondents dated 06.08.2019. The petitioner has spent lot of money for modification of the premises to meet the requirements of the respondents to run the IML Outlet with a fond hope of getting the lease period extended for further period after completion of one year. The petitioner has also reduced the rents from Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- as requested by the Committee constituted by the respondents and the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in shifting the IML Outlet shop to the premises of one Gandu Durga Rao constructed ACC roofed shed in the land belong to the Government situated in R.S.No. 730/1 which is part and parcel of PWD Poramboke is illegal, arbitrary and prays to direct the respondents to continue the IML Outlet in the premises of the petitioner.

¶9

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel Sri M. Jayarami Reddy, appearing for the Respondents 2 and 3 submits that the petitioner’s premises bearing D.No. 9-96 of Peddakalepalli Village, was taken on lease for a period of one year on monthly rent of Rs. 18,000/- on tender basis to run the IML Outlet with I.D.No. 06003- Avanigadda. The lease period is expired by 30.09.2020.

¶10

¶11

Still the shop is being continued in the same premises for further two months. As on date the IML Outlet is not shifted to any other premises or proposal to shifted the same as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner has no right to ask the respondents 2 to 4 to continue the IML Outlet in his premises beyond expiry of the lease period, as the lease period has already expired; no notice is required to be given to the petitioner about intimation of vacating the premises. As per the Circular instructions dated 06.08.2019 there is no clause or whisper with regard to extension of lease period or to continue the IML Outlet in the leased premises continuously beyond expiry of lease period of one year.

¶12

The petitioner made a representation dated 30.10.2020 said to have been submitted to the respondents 2 to 3 with regard to shifting of shop to the alleged premises belonging to one Gandu Durga Rao, constructed ACC roofed shed in the land belong to the Government situated in R.S.No. 730/1, which is part and parcel of PWD Poramboke. This is a matter, where it requires to be enquired by the Respondents 2 and 3 before entering into the Lease Agreement, the Writ Petition is filed on hypothetical cause of action and no part of the petitioner’s rights will be infringed. Hence this Writ Petition is misconceived and liable to the dismissed.

¶13

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the record this Court found that the respondents 2 to 4 took the petitioner’s premises bearing No. 9-96 of Peddakalepalli Village, Mopidevi Mandal on lease by following tender process on monthly rent of Rs. 18,000/- for a period of one year, which expires by 30.09.2020. There is no part of petitioner’s rights will be infringed by proposal to shift the IML Outlet No. 06003 – Avanigadda from the petitioner’s premises to the other premises, which are

¶14

¶15

convenient for running the IML Outlet, based on the assessment made by the respondents 2 to 4 which could not be found fault with. The proposed shifting of IML Outlet from the petitioner’s premises is not in violation of the Lease Agreement and circular dated 06.08.2019.

¶16

A reading of the Circular instructions did not disclose that respondents are obligated to continue to run the IML Outlet in the petitioner’s premises on lease basis. The other contentions of the petitioner that the respondents 2 to 4 are proposing to shift IML Outlet from petitioner’s premises to the premises of one Gandu Durga Rao, who is Village Convenor of Ruling YSRCP Party countenance illegal is untenable. The lease agreement entered between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are purely a commercial in nature. The petitioner failed to show the any existing rights of the petitioner is being violated by shifting the IML Outlet from the petitioner’s premises. The petitioner is failed to show that any of his rights infringed and statutory obligation on the part of the respondents to continue the IML Outlet in the petitioner’s premises beyond lease period and no public interest suffered to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus. Hence the Writ Petition is misconceived.

¶17

In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is devoid of any rights and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

¶18

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.

¶19

__________________________ JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶20

Date: 09.11.2020 CBS/ KK

¶21

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.20744 OF 2020

¶24

Date: 09.11.2020

¶25

CBS/ KK

Yarralagadda Siva Prasad, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yarralagadda Siva Prasad, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mediboina Jagadeswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Narayanadri Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Apspdcl

P.Venkata Subba Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chintamani Peta Subba Narasimha Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

G Padmavathi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Bathini Naganna Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of a.P.Limited