Telangana High Court
B. Krishna Reddy, Nalgonda ... vs The Govt. Of A.P. Hyd 4Ots on 28 February, 2022
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL No.132 of 2010
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of an order
dated 20.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.23954 of 2009.
The appellant before this Court is a Municipal
Councillor at the relevant point of time. The facts of the
case reveal that the respondent No.5/writ petitioner (M/s.
New Prem Talkies) has preferred a writ petition i.e.,
W.P.No.23954 of 2009 being aggrieved by the action of the
respondent No.1 in directing the respondents No.2 to 4 to
conduct auction of the cinema theatre i.e., Jubilee Hall.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that M/s. New
Prem Talkies was a lessee in respect of the cinema theatre
and the lease was granted by the Nalgonda Municipality in
the year 1978. Certain proceedings took place in the
matter and the lease also stood terminated. The appellant
herein preferred a writ petition i.e., W.P.No.6354 of 2009
being aggrieved by the action of the Commissioner,
Municipal Administration, and the District Collector,
Nalgonda, in not taking possession of the subject premises
and in not ensuring that the same is leased out only by
way of public auction. The said writ petition was allowed
by a Division Bench of this Court on 25.08.2009.
Challenging the said order dated 25.08.2009 passed in
W.P.No.6354 of 2009, the respondent No.5/writ petitioner
has preferred a Special Leave Petition i.e., SLP (Civil)
No.27670 of 2009 and the same was dismissed on
09.11.2009. Meaning thereby, the respondent No.5/writ
petitioner was under obligation to vacate the subject
premises. The respondent No.5/writ petitioner took a plea
before the learned Single Judge that it should be permitted
to participate in the process of auction and till a bidder is
finalised, it should not be forced to remove the machinery
as it would go waste. In those circumstances,
W.P.No.23954 of 2009 was disposed of on 20.11.2009 with
the following directions:-
"a) the respondents 1 and 2 shall conduct auction of the
leasehold rights for the building in question, without
requiring the petitioner to remove the machinery and
equipment;
b) in case the petitioner emerges as the highest bidder,
he shall be entitled to continue as lessee, on fresh
terms;
c) if the petitioner does not emerge as the highest bidder,
he shall be under obligation to remove the equipment
and machinery, within a period of six weeks from the
date on which, the lease, in favour of the highest
bidder, is confirmed; and
d) till this exercise is undertaken, the petitioner shall be
entitled to continue as a lessee on the existing terms."
The aforesaid directions make it very clear that the
Municipality was granted permission to proceed ahead with
the auction process and it was also observed that in case
the respondent No.5/writ petitioner does not emerge as the
highest bidder, the respondent No.5/writ petitioner shall
be under obligation to remove the equipment and
machinery, within a period of six weeks from the date on
which, the lease, in favour of the highest bidder, is
confirmed.
This Court does not find any reason to interfere with
the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Resultantly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
As we are dismissing the writ appeal, the competent
authority, if the auction has not been conducted so far,
shall ensure that the auction is conducted positively within
a period of ninety days from today and consequential steps
are taken in the matter in the light of the order passed by
the learned Single Judge.
The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
______________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
28.02.2022
vs
