HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NOs.1290 AND 1291 OF 2014 DATED:17.10.2014 Between:
A. Subba Narasimha Reddy and others … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Medical and Health Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NOs.1290 AND 1291 OF 2014 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) Both the appeals are taken up for hearing. As the issues involved therein are interlinked, we dispose of the same by the following common judgment
2. The appellants before us were lessees in respect of eight shops in the shopping complex located in the premises of Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Kadapa, Kadapa District. After the appellants were declared successful bidder, they entered into lease agreement and made payment in terms thereof. After expiry of the lease period, when time comes for the authorities concerned to lease out further, they decided to hold auction. The writ petitioners, appellants before us, however, challenged the action contending that the authorities concerned are supposed to renew such lease automatically in terms of the lease agreement and no auction could be held.
3. The learned trial Judge admitted the writ petitions and heard the matter on affidavit. On fact the learned trial Judge found on reading relevant terms that renewal of lease as claimed by the appellants is not automatic and the same was conditional. It was also found that the writ petitioners – appellants have committed breach of terms of the lease agreement for which they have rendered themselves disqualified. Hence, the learned trial Judge found no merit in the writ petitions. The learned Judge not only dismissed writ petitions, but directed the petitioners also to vacate the shops and hand over vacant possession to second respondent enabling him to take effective and complete steps after holding auction, in accordance with law.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel for the respondents. We are of the view that there are materials which constitute a factual dispute and, according to us, the writ petitions should not have been decided without receiving further evidence. We fail to understand why the writ petitions were entertained as they manifestly involve contractual rights and obligation between the parties. It is not case of resolution of disputes at the threshold of the contract. The agreement was concluded and alleged breach thereof can only be decided by the Civil Court under appropriate laws. It is absolutely a private nature of agreement and it does not have any statutory character and nor does it emanate from any statutory provision. Under these circumstances, remedy cannot be sought to by the writ petition.
5. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge and the writ petitions shall stand dismissed in limine. It will be open for the petitioners/appellants and each of them to approach appropriate Civil Court for redressal of their grievance.
6. The writ appeals are accordingly disposed of.
Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 17.10.2014 bnr