Poripireddy Krishna, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 349 AP

                                1




       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

                  Writ Petition No.35 of 2021



ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel

for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC)

representing the respondents 3 and 4.

The prayer in the writ petition is for extension of the

lease in respect of Kalyana Mandapam, which is the subject

matter of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner states

that during the Covid period, the premises was used by the

Municipal Authorities as a shelter. Therefore, he submits that

he was deprived of the use of the premises for a specific

period of time and he prays for an extension of the lease. This

is the sole ground, on which the extension is sought.

In reply to this, Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy,

learned Standing Counsel relying upon Division Bench

Judgment of the combined High Court in Kotha Sambasiva

Rao Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its

Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban

Development Department, Amaravathi 1 argues that

Mandamus does not lie for granting of an extension of the

lease. He points out that the Division Bench has clearly

considered all these issues and came to a conclusion that the

2017 (5) ALD 94 (DB)

extension of lease is a matter of discretion and that the Court

therefore cannot issue Mandamus for the extension of the

lease. He also submits that the possession of the property has

already been taken.

After considering the submissions made by learned

Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation and

considering the case law cited, this Court is of the opinion

that the Mandamus as sought for cannot be granted, unless

there is a duty and breach of a duty. Admittedly, the

extension of lease is a matter of discretion. The respondent

Corporation has already refused the extension of lease and

has also taken the possession of the property.

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion

that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ

petition. It is however made clear that the petitioner is at

liberty to pursue his other remedies if he is so advised for the

period, in which he states he was deprived of use of the lease

premises.

With the above observation, the Writ Petition is

dismissed. There shall be no costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU Date: 25.01.2021 GR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

Writ Petition No.35 of 2021

Dated: 25.01.2021

GR