P.Satyanarayana vs State Of Telangana And 1 Other

This writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…….to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents more particularly Respondent No.2 in issuing the Public Auction Notice Dated 09.03.2023 vide ROC.No.A1/96/2023 without considering the Representations Dated 08.07.2022 and 15.09.2022 made by the Petitioner for extension of Lease period from October 2022 for a period of 30 years in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.82, Dated 28.03.2016 is illegal, arbitrary, against to the principles of natural justice and consequently to set-aside the Public Auction Notice Dated 09.03.2023 vide ROC.No.A1/96/2023 published on 10.03.2023 and direct the Respondent No.2 to consider the Representations Dated 08.07.2022 and 15.09.2022 for extension of lease and pass such other order or orders..”.

Heard Sri Resu Mahender Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.B.Jagan Madhav Rao, learned standing counsel for respondent No.2.

It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is the absolute owner and possessor of premises bearing No.3-1-1, Municipal Jubilee Hall known as “New Prem Talkies premises” (PVN Cinemax) herein referred as SUBJECT PROPERTY. The subject property was leased out by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner on various conditions of the notification issued by the Nalgonda Municipality.

It is the further case of the petitioner that after obtaining the requisite license has spent huge amounts for developing and running the PVN Cinemax. Taking into consideration the said fact, the 2nd respondent has renewed the said lease for every period of three (3) years since last 25 years and same is existing as on date in favour of the petitioner.

While the matter stood thus, the 2nd respondent has issued fresh tender notification inviting public for auction of the subject property scheduled to be conducted on 18.03.2023. Even before the said auction notice issued by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has made representations dated 08.07.2022 and 15.09.2022 requesting the 2nd respondent to consider for extension of lease for a period of 30 years, relying upon the G.O. issued vide G.O.Ms.No.82, dated 28.03.2016. It is the case of the petitioner that under Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014, the said G.O. was adopted by the State of Telangana and Clause 3 of the said G.O read as under:

“(3) In the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Regulation of Receipts and Expenditure) Rules 1968:-

(i) throughout the rules, except occurring in a title or citation or description etc., for the words, “Andhra Pradesh” the word “Telangana” shall be substituted.

(ii) (a) In Sub-clause (4) of clause (h) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Regulation of Receipts & Expenditure) Rules, 1968, for the words “twenty-five years” the words “thirty years” shall be substituted.

(b) In Sub-clause (4) of clause (h) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Regulation of Receipts & Expenditure) Rules, 1968, for items (a), (b) & (c) the following items shall be substituted, namely:-

(a) Rent at 15 % of the current mark value of the property per annum i.e., both the structure and buildings fixed by Registration Department under the Andhra Pradesh Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules, 1998 (or)

(b) Rent at 50 percent above the earlier rent, or:

(c) Rate obtained in open market auction with the first right of refusal going to earlier lessee, provided his lease is considered for 5 extra years in exceptional cases.”

According to Clause 3(ii)(a) of the said G.O Municipal Corporation/Municipalities are entitled for extension of time as substituted from 25 years to 30 years. The petitioner is entitled to be considered for extension of lease in accordance with the said G.O. for a period of 30 years. The petitioner relying on the said G.O. also submitted representations stated supra. The respondents without considering the said representations in terms of the above G.O is now proceeding with the auction scheduled lease property on 18.03.2023.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that without considering the representations of the petitioner in accordance with the said G.O, the respondents have issued notification for conducting auction which is arbitrary and illegal and therefore prays to direct the respondents to consider petitioner’s representations, since he is the lessee for more than 50 years and he has invested huge amount and he has complied with all terms and conditions.

Mr.Jagan Madhav Rao, Learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner was granted lease in the year 1972 for 25 years and it was subsequently extended for every 3 years, almost upto 50 years in favour of the petitioner. It is settled position of law that the petitioner is not entitled for consideration as matter of right for extension of lease and every citizen is entitled to participate in the auction scheduled to be conducted on 18.03.2023. Further, learned counsel for respondents contends that since there are complicated issues of civil nature are involved, this Court is not entitled to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.

After considering the rival submissions of parties, this Court is of the view that according to the petitioner lease was granted in the year 1972 and the same was renewed for every 3 years and petitioner has invested huge amount and has submitted representations in accordance with the said G.O of the Government for renewal of lease for further period and the said representations are pending with the Government.

Taking overall facts into consideration, the respondents are directed to consider the representations of the petitioner duly taking note of the policy framed by the State Government enunciated in G.O.Ms.No.82, dated 28.03.2016, if the petitioner is not entitled in terms of the said G.O. the respondents are at liberty to proceed with the auction scheduled to be conducted on 18.03.2023 and in the event, if petitioner is not declared as successful bidder for further period of lease, the respondents shall allow the petitioner to take away his machinery and all belongings by granting two (2) months time to vacate the schedule premises and handover to the highest bidder.

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.