P. Naveen Rao, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as standing counsel for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and with the consent of the learned counsels, this writ petition is heard and disposed of finally at the admission stage.

2. Petitioner is running a jewellery shop in Visakhapatnam town. This writ petition is instituted challenging the endorsement dated 23.05.2015 issued by the Zonal Commissioner of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC). By the said endorsement, petitioner was informed that there is no possibility of change of lease in respect of shop No. 40 (ground floor) and shop No. 15 (first floor) in T.S.R. Commercial Complex of respondent corporation.

3. Petitioner avers that person, by name, N.S. Raju was granted lease of shop Nos. 40, 41 and 52 in ground floor; Sri Kuritala Srinivas was granted lease of shop No. 15 in first floor in T.S.R. Commercial Complex of respondent corporation in Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam. Petitioner claims that he joined as a partner with the above lessees. As the lessees intend to stop their business, petitioner came forward to take over the business and also the lease of the shops instead of the said lessees. Requesting for transfer of lease in favour of the petitioner a representation was submitted on 23.08.2014 to the respondent corporation. In response to the said request, the Zonal Commissioner issued proceedings dated 03.09.2014 directing the petitioner to comply with the conditions stipulated therein before processing his request. In consequence thereof, petitioner stated to have complied with all the conditions stipulated and amount of Rs. 14.00 lakhs was paid which was towards arrears of rent payable by the original lessees and towards advance rent as a consequence to transfer of lease in favour of the petitioner. Inspite of several representations and meetings of the officers personally, there was not much of progress. However, in anticipation of grant of lease, petitioner undertook repairs to the leased premises and renovated the old structures to meet the requirements of the jewellery shop and commenced the business under the name and style of Kameswari Jewellers on 10.04.2015. Petitioner contended that all these four shops form into a single unit. Shop No. 15 is in the first floor and other three shops are in the ground floor and there was a common entrance through shop No. 40 and, therefore, all these four shops constitute as one unit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that with the assurance given by the respondent-corporation, petitioner commenced the jewellery business. The respondent-corporation by communicating letter dated 03.09.2014 directing the petitioner to comply with the conditions stipulated therein have clearly indicated that the lease would be transferred in favour of the petitioner and lease would be continued in respect of all the four shops. In view of such positive indication given by the respondent-corporation and having paid the amount as demanded, the petitioner has undertaken renovation of four shops to suit his business needs by spending huge money and with great difficulty jewellery shop was opened. Thus, the entire exercise was undertaken with the consent and knowledge of the respondent-corporation. It is not open for the respondent-corporation to decline transfer of lease post facto. Such decision of the respondent-corporation is arbitrary and discriminatory adversely affecting the right of the petitioner to carry on business and nullifies huge amount invested by him with fond hope of transfer and renewal of lease. On the assurance given by the respondent-corporation, petitioner has invested huge money for renovation, obtained all the required permissions for running a jewellery business and commenced the business.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that no reasons are assigned for rejecting such request and it amounts to arbitrary exercise of power, more particularly when the corporati