R.K.Parthiban vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court found considerable merit in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality. The Court held that the petitioner's license period was indeed ending on March 31, 2021. While acknowledging that the petitioner might have sustained losses due to the lockdown and pandemic, the Court ruled that this fact alone did not constitute a valid legal ground to prevent the Municipality from conducting the public auction for the subsequent financial year. The Court observed that the petitioner's intention to stall the auction process to have his grievance regarding past losses redressed, without participating in the new auction, lacked a legal basis. The Court concluded that there was no valid legal ground to consider the petitioner's prayer to stall the auction. The petitioner was advised to pursue his legal remedy for his grievance regarding past losses in the appropriate forum.

Facts

The petitioner participated in a public auction for the leasehold rights to collect market fees from taxi and auto owners for the financial year 2020-2021, depositing Rs. 4,75,000/- and later paying the balance sum of Rs. 4,65,000/- along with GST. The petitioner was granted permission to collect fees from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021. 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 hold a public auction 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 collection of market fee for the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022, without redressing the petitioner's grievance regarding losses sustained during the previous financial year due to lockdown and pandemic, is illegal, unjust, and irrational, thereby warranting the setting aside of the public auction notice dated 20.3.2021. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the Municipality's action of proceeding with the auction for the next financial year without addressing his losses from the previous year, caused by circumstances beyond his control (lockdown and pandemic), is illegal and irrational. He sought to stall the auction process until his grievance was redressed. Revenue/State's contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality argued that the petitioner's license period for collecting market fees was set to end on March 31, 2021. Therefore, the Municipality was legally proceeding with conducting a public auction for the next financial year commencing from April 1, 2021. They contended that the petitioner had no legal right to prevent the auction based on losses incurred during his lease period.