Disposed

Bodugu Siva Kumar v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Sept 2024WP/21043/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Shop lease-holders at an APSRTC bus station sought renewal after their 20-year leases expired. The Court directed respondents 3 and 4 to consider their representation within three weeks, with petitioners continued meanwhile, and disposed of the writ petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 3 and 4 to consider the representation dated 16.04.2024 and pass orders within three weeks; petitioners continued in occupation till then; no costs.

Bodugu Siva Kumar Vs the State of Ap — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER | TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR \

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 21043 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bodugu Siva Kumar, S/o. B. Suganna, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Shop No.8, R/o.17/140, Gonegandia Road, YemmiganurTown and Municipality, Kurnool District.

¶9

PatilHanumantha Reddy, S/o. P. Sesha Reddy, Aged^about57 years. Occ- Shop No.9, R/o. H.No. 4-97/6, Balaji Nagar, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶10

G. Ghouse, S/o. Abdul Vakil, Aged about 45 years, Occ- Shop No.11, R/o. H.No. 18/612-3, Court Road, YemmiganurTown and Municipality, Kurnool District.

¶11

G. Hafeez Mohammed Niyaz, S/o.G.A. Vakeel, Aged^about49 years, Occ: Shop No. 12, R/o. 18/261, Court Road, YemmiganurTown and Municipality, Kurnool District.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶15

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director(V.C and M.D), RTC House, PNBS, Vijayawada-5200131.

¶16

The Regional Manager, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶17

The Depot Manager, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in"

¶20

the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Direction more particularly^{oneinthenature} of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering the representation dated, 16.04.2024 requesting to continue/running of the shop Nos. 8,9,11 and 12 in^{respectofPetitionersat} 4'^ Respondent/Yemmiganur APSRTC Bus Station, Yemmiganur,^Kurnool District as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, apart^fromgross violation of principles of natural justice and also violative of^{Articles21and18ofthe} Constitution and consequently direct the 4 th Respondent to renewe petitioners lease period to continue/running of the^{shopsNos.8,9,11and} 12 in respect of Petitioners at Yemmiganur APSRTC Bus Station, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District by duly considering petitioners representation dated 16.04.2024.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} pleased to direct the Respondents not to interfere^{intopetitionersshops} Nos. 8,9,11 and 12 at Yemmiganur APSRTC Bus Station,^Yemmiganur, Kurnool District pending disposal of the above writ^petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI MD. SALEEM

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR TRANSPORT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI K.VISWANATHAM,^SCFOR

¶25

APSRTC

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

• c?-

APHC010413252024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶31

[3329]

¶32

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶33

PRESENT

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO: 21043/2024

¶36

Between:

¶37

Bodugu Siva Kumar and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

¶38

AND

¶39

The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶41

1.MD SALEEM

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶43

1.GP FOR TRANSPORT

¶44

The Court made the following:

¶45

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶46

WRIT PETITION NO: 21043/2024

¶47

ORDER:

¶48

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the^Constitution

¶49

of the India seeking the following reliefs;-

¶50

"to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly^one In the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action^of the respondents in not considering the representation^dated 16.04.2024 requesting to continue/running of the shop Nos.8, 9, 11 and 12 in respect of petitioners at 4'^ respondent/Yemmiganur APSRTC Bus Station, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable apart from gross violation of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 21 and^18ofthe Constitution and consequently direct the 4"’ respondent^to renew petitioners’ lease period to continue/running^ofthe shop Nos. 8, 9, 11 and 12 In respect of petitioners at Yemmiganur APSRTC Bus Station, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District by duly considering the petitioners’ representation dated 16.04.2024 and pass such other order.

¶51

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the existing lease holders in respect^of subject shops bearing Nos.8, 9, 11 and 12 situated at 4*^ respondent/Yemmiganu^r APSRTC Bus Station, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District. Initially the petitioners were granted lease on 21.06.2004 for a^{periodoftwenty} years in respect of their respective shops and the^agreed lease period was completed on 20.06.2024. While so, before^completionof the said lease period, the petitioners submitted a joint representation dated 16.04.2024 seeking for extension of lease period in their

¶52

¶53

favour, subject to the terms and conditions of the existing lease deed. Even after submission of the representation and after completion of the lease period, the respondents have^{notconsidered} the representation of the petitioners in expressing manner, but they allowed the petitioners to continue their respective businesses in their respective shops in terms of the existing lease^deed.

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits^that in view of the representation and in view of continuation of the petitioners even after completion of the lease period, the respondents shall consider the representation/request of the petitioners for extension or renewal of lease as requested.

¶55

On the other hand learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that since the petitioners^submitteda representation dated 16.04.2024 seeking for renewal^ofleaseandso far the respondents have not taken any steps for granting a fresh lease and the petitioners are being continued as existing lease holders, as such the request of the petitioners can^{beconsideredin} accordance with law.

¶56

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion the present Writ Petition can be disposed of directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to

¶57

consider the representation of the petitioners dated^{16.04.2024and}

¶58

pass appropriate orders within a period of three(3)^weeksfromthe date of receipt of copy of this Order. Till such time, the petitioners shall be continued.

¶59

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶60

As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall

¶61

also stand closed.

¶62

Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE (SriefrOFFicER

¶63

To,

¶64

Andhra

¶65

1. The Principal Secretary, Transport Department, State of Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District,^Andhra Pradesh.

¶66

The Vice Chairman and Managing Director(V.C and M.D), Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, RTC HOUSE, PNBS, Vijayawada-5200131.

¶67

The Regional Manager, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶68

The Depot Manager, Yemmigahur, Kurnool District.

¶69

One CC to Sri Md. Saleem, Advocate [OPUC]

¶70

One CC to Sri K. Viswanatham, SC for APSRTC[OPUC] 7. TwoCCsto GP for Transport, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶71

Three CD Copies.

ssb

■r

HIGH COURT

DATED;24/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.21043 of 2024

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Bodugu Siva Kumar v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bodugu Siva Kumar v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kilarapu Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Alapati Naga Rajyalakshmi Vs Shashi Bhushan Kumar

Pasula Madhava Reddy Vs Vijay Kumari

Maddineni Suresh Vs The Government of A.P.

M.Vijayalaxmi Vs Sri Praveen Prakash, Ias.

Kilarapu Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of Ap