IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.27516 of 2014 BETWEEN Muthyam Sattaiah.
AND ... PETITIONER The State of Telangana, Rep. by its District Collector, Nalgonda and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MS. T. GEETHA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ MR. P. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioner was a lessee of a fish tank, as per the public auction notification dated 12.08.2013 of Uppalacheruvu and conducted on 20.08.2013. Since petitioner was the highest bidder, he entered into an agreement with respondents 5 and 6 on 05.10.2013 and the tank was handed over to him. While the period of the said contract had expired, petitioner had filed an application for extension of lease of fishing rights for a period of one month from 30.06.2014 to 31.07.2014 and further requested extension beyond that. The said request for extension by further period of one month was, however, rejected by the District Panchayat Officer, Nalgonda under impugned proceedings 12.08.2014 directing the Sarpanch and the Panchayat Secretary to conduct fresh open auction for fishing rights for the year 2014-2015 by duly obtaining upset price from the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Bhongir in terms of G.O.Ms.No.496 Panchayat Raj dated 11.06.1966. The said rejection of further extension is questioned in this writ petition.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am unable to see any justification to once again direct consideration of petitioner’s request for further extension inasmuch as the petitioner was already granted one extension for one month and the period of lease of the petitioner having already expired, merely on the ground that he has, allegedly, suffered heavy loss, he cannot perpetually continue with his lease depriving the income generated to the Gram Panchayat concerned. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, if and when any further auction for the year 2014-2015 is held, petitioner is at liberty to participate therein by offering his competitive bid.
The writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 9, 2014 DSK