The Nandi Rythu Samkya vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The High Court disposed of both writ petitions. It directed the Selection Grade Officer, Agriculture Marketing Committee, Nandyal (Respondent No. 9), to provide the petitioners with an opportunity of hearing. Furthermore, Respondent No. 9 was instructed to dispose of the petitioners' representation dated March 21, 2024, as early as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of receiving the court's order. Crucially, the Court ordered that the petitioners shall not be evicted from the subject shop rooms until a decision is taken on their representation. The Court made no order as to costs, and all pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

Facts

Two writ petitions were filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court by Silpa Seva Samithi and The Nandi Rythu Samkya. Both petitioners were allotted shop rooms and godowns by the Agriculture Market Committee, Nandyal, with their leasehold rights being renewed periodically. The latest lease was valid from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2024. The petitioners represented for a renewal of their lease for another two years, with a 5% enhancement of rental as per allotment terms. However, the Assistant Marketing Manager, Agriculture Marketing Committee, Nandyal, issued a notice on June 25, 2025, directing the petitioners to vacate the premises instead of renewing the lease. The petitioners challenged this notice as arbitrary and illegal, seeking a writ of mandamus to renew their lease.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice dated 25.06.2025 issued by the Assistant Marketing Manager, Agriculture Marketing Committee, Nandyal, directing the petitioners to vacate the shop rooms, instead of renewing their lease, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India? The petitioners argued that the notice was arbitrary and illegal, constituting a colorable exercise of power contrary to established legal principles and violating their fundamental rights. They contended that their lease should have been renewed for a further period of two years with a 5% enhancement of the lease rental, as per the existing allotment terms. They relied on the principle of legitimate expectation and the established practice of renewal. The respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel for Agricultural Marketing Committees, stated that the petitioners' representation was under consideration by the recently constituted Agriculture Market Committee. They assured that the petitioners would not be evicted until a decision was taken on their representation and requested the disposal of the writ petitions accordingly.