Gudavalli Srinivas vs. The Eluru Municipal Corporation Eluru

Held

The Court directed the second respondent to execute a lease deed in favour of the petitioner for the subject shop, provided the petitioner complies with all other terms and conditions. The Court's decision was based on the petitioner's submission that he had paid the required amounts, including GST, and was ready to comply with the remaining conditions. The respondents' contention of delay on the petitioner's part was implicitly addressed by the direction to execute the lease deed upon compliance. The underlying principle is that once an individual has fulfilled their obligations as per the agreed terms and resolutions, and is ready to complete the formalities, the authorities should not arbitrarily deny them their allotted rights or proceed with eviction. The Court did not explicitly discuss the legality of the GST demand itself but focused on the petitioner's readiness to comply with the demands made by the authorities.

Facts

The petitioner, along with 29 others, operated small shops for over 30 years. Their shops were removed in 2016 for road and drainage extension. The Municipal Corporation decided in January 2017 to allow them to construct shops on vacant land at their own cost, with a condition to pay monthly rent. This decision was ratified, and the petitioner and others jointly constructed a shopping complex. A council resolution in May 2018 allotted shops, fixing the monthly rent. The petitioner was allotted Shop No.F3 at Rs.1629/- per month. Despite requests, formal proceedings were not issued. The petitioner later learned notices were issued to 23 out of 30 allottees. Upon inquiry, the petitioner was informed he needed to pay Rs.4,887/- as rent security deposit and Rs.879/- towards GST. He submitted DDs for these amounts on June 20, 2019. The respondents were proceeding to evict the petitioner, leading to the filing of this writ petition. Interim orders were granted preventing eviction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' action in attempting to evict the petitioner from Shop No.F3 is illegal and arbitrary, considering the petitioner's compliance with the terms and conditions for allotment and payment of dues, including GST. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he and others had been operating shops for over 30 years and were permitted by the Municipal Corporation to construct new shops at their own cost, with a commitment to pay rent. He argued that he had fulfilled all conditions, including paying the security deposit and the specified GST amount, and was ready to execute the lease agreement. The delay in allotment was due to the respondents' inaction, not his fault. He relied on the council resolutions and the fact that lease deeds were executed for other allottees. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent submitted that the petitioner approached the second respondent with some delay, which led to the delay in allotment.