T TATA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed questioning G.O.Rt.No. 1206, Transport, Roads and Buildings (R.IV) Department, dated 6-12-1994 as being arbitrary and violative of the statutory rules framed under the Andhr a Pradesh (Andhra Area) Canals and Public Ferries Act (for short 'the Act').

(2.) The dispute revolves around the grant of leasehold rights of Yedurulanka ferry for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97 at a sum of Rs. 16,58,000/- per year to the 3rd respondent. Previous to this, there was a litigation and two writ petitions - W.P.Nos. 6352 and 7171 of 1995 - were filed by the Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited, represented by its President R. Govinda Rao, 3rd respondent herein. While W.P. No. 6352 of 1995 was filed questioning the Memo No.l5/R.IV(2)/95-l, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department, dated 25-1-1995, W.P.No. 7171 of 1995 was filed questioning the Lr.No.l5/R.IV(2)/95, dated 30-3-1995 issued by the 1st respondent.

(3.) By Memo dated 25-1-1995, the extension of lease granted in G.O.Rt.No. 1206, dated 6-12-1994 was kept in abeyance and by subsequent proceedings dated 30-3-1995, a show cause notice was issued to explain why the order passed in G.O.Rt.No. 1206, dated 6-12-1994 should not be withdrawn. The said society obtained lease over Yedurulanka ferry for the year 1994-95 commencing from 1-4-1994 and expiring on 31-3-1995 by virtue of G.O.Rt.No. 321, Transport, Roads and Buildings (R.IV) Department, dated 24-3-1994 for an amount of Rs. 15,62,000/-. On 16-8-1994, the said society had filed a representation before the Government for renewal of the lease period for two years, i.e., for 1995-96 and 1996-97 expiring on 31-3-1997 by enhancing the rental by 10% and making it to Rs. 16,58,000/- per annum for the two years -1995-96 and 1996-97. The lease has been extended in G.O.Rt.No. 1206, dated 6-12-1994. The reason for issuing the Memo dated 25-1-1995 and the show cause notice dated 30-3-1995 seems to be that the extension was not in accordance with law and also a loss to the exchequer as the petitioner herein had even offered Rs. 26,58,000/- per annum and also submitted a demand draft for Rs. 2,60,000/-. The present writ petitioner had filed W.P.M.P.No. 7908 of 1995 in W.P.No. 6352 of 1995 seeking to implead himself; but the same was dismissed by order dated 21-7-1995 holding that impleadment petition was not maintainable and that if the petitioner so chooses, he may have to question the same by filing a separate writ petition. Hence, this writ petition.