PADMA PAWAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Sri T.P.Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, representing respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 has not entered appearance and the notice sent to him has been returned with postal endorsement 'unclaimed'.

(2.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the action of respondent No.2 in granting leasehold rights to run a canteen in premises forming part of old LIC Building, Nizamabad Town in favour of respondent No.3 without calling for tenders. The petitioner averred that failure of respondent No.2 to follow the well established method in awarding lease to respondent No.3 vitiated the decision making process and consequently, the very decision itself.

(3.) APPLYING these settled principles of law to the present case, the action of respondent No.2 in granting lease to respondent No.3 cannot be justified. Even if there was not much response to the tender notification issued in the year 2005, that hardly constitutes any justification for respondent No.2 to give away the leasehold rights just for the asking by respondent No.3. As long as five years have passed since the previous notification was issued. A person holding the position of respondent No.2 cannot be expected to think that the situation prevailed in the year 2005 would have continued even after five years, as it is common knowledge that rapid changes due to intense urbanization are taking place and Nizamabad being the District Headquarters, it is reasonable to expect that the demand for running canteen would have increased.