S.Subrahmanyam vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court found considerable merit in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent. The Court noted that the petitioner's license period was set to expire on March 31, 2021. While acknowledging that the petitioner might have sustained losses due to the lockdown and pandemic, the Court held that this fact alone did not constitute a valid legal ground to prevent the 4th respondent from conducting the public auction for the subsequent financial year commencing April 1, 2021. The Court observed that the petitioner was at liberty to participate in the new auction. However, the petitioner sought to stall the auction process based on his grievance of past losses without participating in the new auction, which the Court found to be without any valid legal basis. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage, while granting the petitioner liberty to pursue his legal remedy concerning his grievance of losses in the appropriate forum.

Facts

The petitioner participated in a public auction held on February 24, 2020, for the leasehold rights to collect fees from bus owners at the Nagari bus stand for the financial year April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021. He was successful, depositing Rs. 4,00,000 and later the balance amount of Rs. 3,94,000 along with GST on the bid amount. He was issued proceedings on March 11, 2020, permitting him to collect fees. Due to the COVID-19 lockdown, the petitioner claims to have sustained losses during this period. He submitted a representation to the respondents seeking redressal for these losses. However, without his grievance being addressed, the 4th respondent (Municipality) proceeded to issue a public auction notice dated March 20, 2021, for the leasehold rights for the subsequent financial year, April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this auction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 4th respondent in holding a public auction for the leasehold rights for the financial year 2021-2022, without redressing the petitioner's grievance regarding losses sustained during the financial year 2020-2021 due to the pandemic and lockdown, is illegal, unjust, and irrational, thereby warranting the setting aside of the auction notice dated March 20, 2021? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the auction for the next financial year should not proceed without his losses from the previous year being addressed. He sought a declaration that the auction was illegal and irrational on this basis. Revenue/State's contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent argued that the petitioner's license period ended on March 31, 2021, and therefore, the Municipality was proceeding with the auction for the next financial year. They contended that the petitioner had no legal right to prevent the auction based on losses incurred during his lease period.