Important Point—Merely because respondent authority has passed one illegal/unwarranted order, does not entitle High Court to compel authority to repeat that illegality again and again.

Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

1. This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No.13654 of 2017. The appellant herein is the petitioner in W.P. No.13654 of 2017 wherein he sought a mandamus to declare the action of the Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation (VMC for short), in not renewing the lease of the Shadhikhana in favour of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to G.O.Ms. No.56 dated 05.02.2011. A consequential direction was also sought to the respondents to extend the appellants lease of the Shadhikhana for another three years from 22.04.2017 to 20.04.2020.

2. Facts, as noted in the order under appeal, are that the petitioner was the successful bidder in the tender floated by the respondent-Corporation for leasing out the subject Shadhikhana initially for a period of three years; thereafter the lease period was extended upto 21.04.2008, to compensate for the 208 days during which the respondents had used the subject premises as a D.P.L. centre and for distribution of ration cards; the respondent-Corporation granted further extension of the lease for a period of three years from 22.04.2008 to 21.04.2011; thereafter, in view of the interim orders passed in W.P. No.26263 of 2011 dated 29.09.2011, the lease was further extended upto 2014, with the enhanced rate of 33 1/3% excess over the existing lease amount; the lease was further extended upto 22.04.2017; and, as the lease was to expire by 22.04.2017, the petitioner made an application on 04.04.2017 requesting the Commissioner, VMC to grant further extension, claiming parity with K.G. Gupta Kalyanamandapam the lease of which was extended for a period of three years by resolution No.5/66 dated 25.05.2016.

3. After noting the rival submissions, urged on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation, the Learned Single Judge observed that the rules notified under the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (the 1965 Act for short) did not automatically apply in relation to anything to be done in Municipal Corporations; the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short the HMC Act) had received the assent of the President of India; while G.O.Ms. No.56 was made in the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 326(1) of the 1965 Act, no corresponding rules were made under the HMC Act; by G.O.Ms. No.56 dated 05.02.2011, the Government had added clause (h) to Rule 12(1) of the Special Rules; the Municipalities Rules were amended in line with the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. No.389 dated 24.09.2004 which stipulates that the lease period should not exceed twelve years, the lease period is initially for five years, and the lease can be renewed for three years at 33 1/3% excess over the lease amount; these guidelines were not statutory in character, and were not binding on the Corporation; these guidelines were not enforceable, especially when they were not in conformity with the statutory provisions, in the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India (AIR 1989 SC 2138), following the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in G.J. Fernandez v. The State of Mysore (AIR 1967 SC 1753); even assuming that the guidelines were required to be followed by the Corporation, the petitioner had, admittedly, entered into the lease of the property in 2004, and the lease granted in his favour was extended, from time to time, until 21.04.2017 which was beyond the 12 year period stipulated in the guidelines in G.O.Ms. No.389; further, Section 148 of the HMC Act mandates that sanction of the Standing Committee is required for transfer of immovable properties by lease; as a matter of fact, there was a statutory bar for granting lease for a term exceeding three years in each instance; there were no merits in the case; and the Writ Petition was liable to be dismissed.

4. Before us Sri N. Subba Rao, Learned Counsel appearing on beh