B RAGHURAMI REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by quoting Rs.32,000/- became highest bidder in the auction conducted by the fourth respondent in October 2005 for leasing out fishing rights in Devaracheruvu tank, for one year. He alleges that he spent Rs.5.00 lakhs for fish seed besides another Rs.5.00 lakhs for developing the fish in the tank. Fish was to be harvested in June 2006, but he cannot do, due to heavy inflows into Papagni river, resulting in higher water levels in the tank. He approached fourth respondent for extension of lease for a period of five years. The Gram Panchayat passed resolution on 18.5.2006 extending lease for 1416 Fasli subject to enhancement by 10% over and above the auction amount. The petitioner statedly paid Rs.35,200/- on 12.7.2006. When the fourth respondent sought confirmation from the second respondent, the matter was kept pending. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 19412 of 2006 seeking a direction to second respondent to confirm the extension of lease resolved by the Gram Panchayat. Gram Panchayat submitted that documents filed by the petitioner are fabricated. The said writ petition, therefore, was closed on 16.10.2006. The second respondent thereafter obtained a report from third respondent and passed orders on 4.10.2006 extending lease subject to enhancement of lease amount by 33%. Petitioner paid difference amount of Rs.7,360/- to the Gram Panchayat.

(2.) The Government - first respondent herein; issued Memo No.20208/Pts.IV/A2/ 2006-2, dated 24.10.2006 informing that Sarpanch, filed a revision petition against the orders of second respondent dated 4.10.2006. On the same day, notice of hearing was given to the petitioner by way of telegram. Ultimately the Government passed orders on 22.11.2006 setting aside the orders dated 4.10.2006 of second respondent. The same was questioned in W.P. No.24702 of 2006. The same was allowed by this Court on 14.12.2006. Petitioner alleges that thereafter he did not hear anything in the matter and was not well from 5.3.2007. On 9.3.2007, a clerk from the office of third respondent served a notice of hearing of the revision petition on 12.3.2007 at 5.00 p.m. Petitioner sent a telegram seeking adjournment by four weeks. The Government again issued a notice on 28.3.2007 fixing the date of hearing on 30.3.2007. Petitioner sent vakalat to his advocate to appear before the first respondent and seek time. On 30.3.2007, his advocate appeared before the Government and sought time. But, Hon'ble Minister refused to grant time and called upon the advocate to argue the matter. The Government ultimately passed orders vide G.O. Rt. No.473, dated 2.4.2007 setting aside the order of the second respondent dated 4.10.2006 and further directed the District Collector to conduct fresh auction for fishing rights of Devaracheruvu. The said G.O. is assailed in the writ petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order is vitiated by lack of opportunity as mandated by the proviso to Section 264(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act, for brevity). Secondly, he submits that though the Government is exercising quasi judicial functions in revisional matters, the impugned order is bereft of any reasons.