C.K.Krupanidhi vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court found considerable merit in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent. It held that while it may be a fact that the petitioner sustained losses due to the lockdown and the pandemic situation, this fact does not constitute a valid legal ground to prevent the 4th respondent from holding the public auction for the next financial year. The Court noted that the petitioner's license period was set to end on 31.03.2021. The petitioner was at liberty to participate in the upcoming auction. However, the Court found no valid legal ground to consider the petitioner's prayer to stall the auction proceedings based on his grievance of losses sustained in the previous year without participating in the said auction. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage.

Facts

The petitioner participated in a public auction for the leasehold rights to collect market fees from weekly vendors for the financial year 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021, depositing Rs. 6,50,000/- and later paying the balance sum of Rs. 8,43,880/- including GST. The petitioner was granted permission to collect fees. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdown, the petitioner could not collect fees and sustained losses. The petitioner submitted a representation regarding these losses. However, the 4th respondent (Municipality) proceeded to hold a public auction for the next financial year (01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022) without addressing the petitioner's grievance. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the auction notice dated 20.03.2021, seeking to declare the 4th respondent's action illegal and irrational.

Key Issues

1. Whether the 4th respondent's action in holding a public auction for the leasehold rights to collect market fees for the financial year 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 is illegal, unjust, and irrational, without redressing the petitioner's grievance regarding losses sustained during the previous financial year due to the pandemic and lockdown? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the 4th respondent's action was illegal and irrational because it proceeded with the auction for the next financial year without considering and redressing the losses he sustained in the previous year due to the pandemic and lockdown. He sought to stall the auction process on this ground. Revenue/State's contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the petitioner's license period ended on 31.03.2021, and therefore, the Municipality was proceeding with the public auction for the next financial year. He contended that the petitioner had no legal right to prevent the Municipality from conducting the auction on the grounds of losses incurred during his lease period.