Budireddy Appa Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3044 AP

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                            &

              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU

                        WRIT APPEAL No.553 of 2022
                              (Through physical mode)

Budireddy Appa Rao,
S/o. late Nooka Raju, aged about 53 years,
R/at Door No.6-141, Gowtham Nagar,
Vepagunta, Pendurthi,
Visakhapatnam - 530047.
                                                             .. Appellant
               Versus

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary
to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban
Development Department, Secretariat at Velagapudi,
Amaravati, Guntur District, and others.
                                                        .. Respondents

Counsel for the appellant               : Mr. P. Rajkumar
Counsel for respondent No.1             : GP for Municipal Admn. & Urban Dev.
Counsel for respondent Nos.2&3          : Mr. S. Lakshminarayana Reddy


                                   ORAL JUDGMENT

                                    Dt: 29.06.2022

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

This writ appeal would call in question the order dated 18.04.2022

passed by a learned single Judge dismissing W.P.No.8791 of 2022 filed by

the appellant herein seeking a direction to the respondents to allow him to

catch the fish during the lease period 2021-2022 from Ravada Revella Tank,

Sathivanipalem, Narava Revenue Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Greater

Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation limits, Visakhapatnam District.

HCJ & DVSS,J

2. Admittedly, the appellant/writ petitioner was in arrears of lease

amount payable to Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and a

notice was issued to him on 23.12.2021 by the Corporation, directing him to

pay the arrears of lease amount of Rs.11,75,000/- along with 18% interest

on or before 27.12.2021. Instead of paying the said amount, the

appellant/writ petitioner approached the writ Court by filing the above writ

petition, wherein the learned single Judge has passed an interim order on

08.04.2022 directing the respondent authorities to permit the appellant/writ

petitioner to operate the fish tank from 16.04.2022 to 15.05.2022 on

condition of the appellant/writ petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.14,00,000/-

on or before 16.04.2022. It was also made clear that the authorities can

proceed with the auction in respect of the fishing rights after 15.05.2022 or

if the appellant/writ petitioner has not fulfilled the above condition and that

the appellant/writ petitioner would be at liberty to participate in the auction

to be held in respect of the subject fish tank. Despite the same, the

appellant/writ petitioner did not comply with the condition imposed. In such

circumstances, the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

3. Mr. S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing

for respondent Nos.2 and 3, would submit that before the interim order

dated 08.04.2022 was passed in the writ petition, the appellant/writ

petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.12,68,500/- in favour of the Corporation,

however, simultaneously he issued instructions to his banker to stop

payment and the cheque was dishonoured.

4. Be that as it may, upon consideration of the entire facts and

circumstances of the case, it is quite evident that though the appellant/writ

petitioner projected that he is ready and willing to pay the lease amount, in HCJ & DVSS,J

fact, he has avoided to make payment and though the writ Court has shown

indulgence by granting conditional interim order, he did not comply with the

condition. The appellant/writ petitioner, having chosen not to comply with

the conditional interim order and having failed to prove his bona fides, is not

entitled for grant of any relief. In the circumstances, we are of the

considered opinion that the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the

writ petition and no interference is warranted in this appeal.

5. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J

IBL HCJ & DVSS,J

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE &

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU

WRIT APPEAL No.553 of 2022

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

Dt: 29.06.2022

IBL