Dismissed

K. Vasantha Kumar Reddy v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Jun 2024WP/2671/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought mandamus directing respondents to conduct public auction for leasehold rights of shop rooms at Piler Market Yard instead of allowing unauthorized lessees. Pending petition an open auction was conducted; petitioner stated cause did not survive. Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous without costs and closed pending interlocutory applications.

What the court decided

AI extract

K. Vasantha Kumar Reddy Vs the State… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

a V- c

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 2671 OF 2019

¶8

Between:

¶9

K. Vasantha Kumar Reddy, S/o K. Venugopal Reddy, Aged^about 36 years, Occ Business, R/o. Kondreddy Gari Palle, Doddipalle Post, Chittoor District A.P.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

The Special Commissioner and Director ‘ of Agriculture Marketing

¶14

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶15

The Joint Director of Marketing, Kadapa, Y.S.R District.

¶16

The Assistant Director of Marketing, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

¶17

The Secretary, Agriculture Marketing Committee, Piler Town and Mandal, Chittoor District

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

¶20

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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents Nos.3 to 5 in allowing unauthorized persons as lessees of the Shop Rooms which are under the control of the respondent No.5 without granting lease hold rights by conducting open auction and thereby depriving the petitioner an opportunity to participate in the open auction for grant of lease hold rights as per their whims and fancies as arbitrary illegal, colorable exercise of power, abdication of statutory duty cast on them and well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14,19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to 5 to conduct the Public Auction for grant of lease holds rights in so for as the shop rooms which are under control of the respondent No.5 at Piler Market Yard, Piler, Chittoor District.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2niQ

¶22

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 to direct the direct the respondent No.3 to 5 to conduct the Public Auction for grant of lease holds rights in so for as the shop rooms which are under control of the respondent No.5 at Piler Market Yard, Piler, Chittoor District and aiso permit the petitioner to participate in the tender process, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.R.REDDY KOWURI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI B.PRAKASAM (SC FOR AGRICULTURE MARKETING COMMITTEE) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

[3333]

¶25

APHC010057872019

¶26

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

¶27

TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO: 2671/2019

¶31

Between:

¶32

K. Vasantha Kumar Reddy

¶33

...PETITIONER

¶34

AND

¶35

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

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶37

1.VR REDDY KOWURI

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶39

GP FOR AGRICULTURE (AP)

¶40

B PRAKASAM (Sr SC FOR A M C )

¶41

The Court made the following:

¶42

ORDER:

¶43

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the^{ConstitutionofIndia}

¶44

seeking the following relief;-

¶45

“.. .fo \ssue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction^{moreparticulariyone} in the nature of Writ of Mandamus deciaring the action of^{therespondentsNos.3to5in} allowing unauthorized persons as lessees of the Shop^{Roomswhichareunderthe} control of the respondent No. 5 without granting lease^{holdrightsbyconductingopen} auction and thereby depriving the petitioner an opportunity^{toparticipateintheopen} auction for grant of lease hold rights, as per their^{whimsandfanciesasarbitrary,} illegal, colorable exercise of power, abdication of^{statutorydutycastonthemandwell} established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19^{and21ofConstitutionofIndiaand} conseguently direct the respondent Nos.3 to 5 to conduct^{thePublicAuctionforgrant} of lease holds rights in so for as the shop rooms which^{areundercontrolofthe} respondent No.5 at Filer Market Yard, Filer, Chittoor^{District....”}

¶46

counsel 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned appearing for the petitioner stated that pending the^writ petition, an open auction was conducted for the shop rooms, which are^{underthecontrolofthe} 5*^ respondent at Filer Market Yard, Filer, Chittoor District. Therefore, the cause in the writ petition does not survive, and the matter has become infructuous.

¶47

dismissed as 3. Recording the above submission, the Writ Fetition is infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

As a sequel. Interlocutory Applications pending, if^any, in this Writ

¶49

Fetition, shall stand closed.

¶50

Sd/- M SRINIVAS assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶51

To,

¶52

V.R.REDDY KOWURl, Advocate [OPUC] 1. One CC to SRI agriculture. High Court of Andhra Pradesh 2 Two CCS to GP FOR [OUT] PRAKASAM. (SC FOR AGRICULTURE MARKETING 3. OneCCtoSRIB. roonn COMMITTEE) Advocate [OPUC]

¶53

Two CD Copies MBT

HIGH COURT

DATED:18/06/2024

ORDER

WP.No.2671 of 2019

o
%S\ 1
-XJl
W >'
A

DISMISSING THE W.P

AS INFRUCTUOUS

WITHOUT COSTS

K. Vasantha Kumar Reddy v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

K. Vasantha Kumar Reddy v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Basheer Ahmed, Hindupur, Ananthapur Dist. Vs the Dist.Registrar,Co-Op.Societies, Kadapa Dist., and 3 Otrs.

Nanda Eswaraiah Vs The State of A.P.

Joseph Sriharsha and Mary Indraja Educational Society Vs the Union of India

Tripura Bio Tech Limited. Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Balakrishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bijivemula Jaya Subba Reddy Vs Prl. Secy., Forest Dept. and 4 Ors.