Dismissed

K.P.Praveen Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Apr 2021WP/3693/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners challenged an auction notification issued by the Hindupur Municipality to lease shop rooms, alleging conditions were onerous and prior promises to vendors were ignored. The Court rejected the contention that conditions were illegal, holding that the Council would be represented by a Special Officer if absent. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

What the court decided

AI extract

K.P.Praveen Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY WRIT PETITION No.3693 OF 2021

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for 1^st respondent and Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipality representing the 2^nd respondent.

¶4

This writ petition has been filed seeking declaration that the auction notification dated 21-01-2021 published in Anantapur District Gazette ATR No.110/2020 ExtraordinaryJanuary, 2021 issued by the 2^nd respondent-Municipality to conduct public auction to lease out the shop rooms in newly constructed municipal complex, as illegal, as the conditions stipulated in the auction notification are onerous and as the earlier promises made by the 2^nd respondent to the vegetable vendors before demolishing the shop rooms for construction of new municipal complex, are not considered and consequently prayed to set aside the said notification.

¶5

The petitioners question the impugned notification issued by the 2^nd respondent-Municipality to conduct public auction to lease out the shop rooms in newly constructed municipal complex by the Hindupur Municipality in the place of old Municipal Vegetable Market at Gandhi Chowk, Hindupur Main Bazar, Hindupur Town on the ground that the condition Nos.12 and 13 of the auction notification are onerous and also on the ground that the 2^nd respondent did not comply with the assurance given to the vegetable vendors before demolishing the

¶6

¶7

earlier old shopping complex. The two conditions, which are enumerated as 12^th and 13^th conditions in the impugned notification, which according to the petitioners are onerous, do not appear to be onerous as stated by the petitioners. Condition No.13 only says that the amount standing in the name of the higher bidder in the public auction would be approved by the Council and thereafter the shop rooms will be allotted to him. This Court is unable to understand as to how the said condition is onerous or illegal according to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that as the Council is not in existence as on the date of issuing the notification, the auction cannot be approved by the Council. Even if the Council is not in existence, the Special Officer would be available to perform the functions of the Council till the Council is formed. Therefore, condition No.13 cannot be held to be illegal or onerous to impugn the notice.

¶8

Even as can be seen from the condition No.12, there is nothing to indicate in the said condition to hold the said condition is illegal or onerous. Therefore, the two grounds on which the petitioners sought to impugn the notification are not legally sustainable to set aside the impugned notification.

¶9

As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 2^nd respondent did not consider the assurance given to the vegetable vendors before demolishing the old complex is concerned, if there are any such assurance and if they are not complied with, the vegetable vendors have to seek redressal of the said grievances in the appropriate forum by initiating necessary legal proceedings to that effect. The

¶10

¶11

petitioners cannot seek to set aside the said notification on the said ground. Therefore, none of the grounds urged in this writ petition to set aside the impugned auction notification are legally sustainable to admit the writ petition.

¶12

Therefore, this Writ Petition is absolutely devoid of any merit and it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶14

____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶15

Date : 06-04-2021 ARR

¶16

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶18

WRIT PETITION No.3693 OF 2021

¶19

Date : 06-04-2021

¶20

ARR

K.P.Praveen Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

K.P.Praveen Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Revella Udaya Bhaskara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kota Sithamrna Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kanuru Venkateswara Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Yedlapati Vasundhara Devi Vs Sri. Vishal Gunni, (I.P.S)

Suddabattula Venkat Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chokkam Ramesh Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh