C M Koteswaran vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court found considerable merit in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality. It held that the petitioner's license period was set to expire on 31.03.2021. While acknowledging that the petitioner might have sustained losses due to the lockdown and pandemic, the Court ruled that this fact did not constitute a valid legal ground to prevent the Municipality from conducting the public auction for the next financial year commencing from 01.04.2021. The petitioner was at liberty to participate in the new auction. However, the Court found no legal right for the petitioner to stall the auction proceedings based on his grievance about past losses without participating in the auction. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage, while granting the petitioner liberty to pursue his legal remedy concerning his grievance about past losses in the appropriate forum.

Facts

The petitioner participated in a public auction for the leasehold rights to collect market fees from daily vendors for the financial year 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021, depositing Rs. 4,00,000/- and later paying the balance sum of Rs. 5,68,780/- including GST. The petitioner was granted the license. Due to the COVID-19 lockdown, the petitioner could not collect fees and sustained losses. He submitted a representation to the 4th respondent (Municipality) regarding these losses. However, without addressing his grievance, the Municipality proceeded with a public auction for the next financial year, 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the auction notice dated 20.03.2021, seeking to declare the Municipality's action illegal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 4th respondent in holding a public auction for the leasehold rights of market fee collection for the period 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 is illegal, unjust, and irrational without addressing the petitioner's grievance regarding losses sustained during the previous financial year due to lockdown and pandemic? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the Municipality's action of proceeding with the auction for the next financial year without considering his representation about losses incurred due to the lockdown and pandemic is illegal, unjust, and irrational. He sought to set aside the auction notice. Revenue/State's contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality argued that the petitioner's license period for collecting market fees ended on 31.03.2021. Therefore, the Municipality was proceeding with the public auction for the subsequent financial year. He contended that the petitioner had no legal right to prevent the Municipality from conducting the auction on the grounds of losses sustained during his lease period.