The court affirmed that the state’s discretion in amending tender conditions is valid if it serves public interest, and a petitioner does not hold a vested right to lease renewal under changing conditions.

JUDGMENT /ORDER :

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief :

".....to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus (a) To declare the Corrigendum-1, dated 05.03.2024, sent by the 2nd respondent and all consequential actions initiated/already taken by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 based on the said corrigendum to be illegal, arbitrary, high handed and in gross violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (b) To declare the actions of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in awarding the lease to the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. (c) And to pass such other order(s) or issue any other appropriate writs by moulding the relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit proper in the circumstances of the present case and pass such other orders...."

2. Heard Mr. Unnam Sravan Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners; learned Assistant Government Pleader, Industries for the 1st respondent; Mr. W.B. Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. J. Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent and Mr. J. Ugranarasimha, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent.

3. During hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 2nd respondent owns premises admeasuring 58,034 Sq.ft., comprising of (Office building measuring 4,676 Sq.ft., covered/shed area of 34,328 Sq.ft., and open/uncovered area of 19,030 Sq.ft.,) situated at D.No.52-14-77, Resapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam, A.P. The petitioner has been leasing the Demised Premises for the past 20 years and has neither missed a single monthly rental nor caused any issue to the 2nd respondent. At present, the demised premises are utilized to operate a hyper market which directly resulted in 1000s of people being gainfully employed. On 05.03.2004, after going through a public tendering process, the 2nd respondent leased the demand premises for a period of 10 years to the petitioner through a registered lease deed dated 05.03.2004, wherein it was recited that before the expiry of lease, the 2nd respondent contacted the petitioner and sought confirmation if it would exercise the First Right of Refusal and Right to Match the highest bid price to renew the lease and informed to renew the lease in 2013, the 2nd respondent called for another public tendering process for the demised premises. Clause 1.1.6 of the 2013 Tender Document had a Right for First Refusal in the writ petitioner's favour. In accordance with the said clause, the petitioner was not even required to participate in the tendering process, merely matching the highest bid is sufficient for the petitioner to renew the lease for another 10 years. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent leased the demised premises for a period of 10 years to the petitioner through a registered lease deed dated 25.04.2014. As the renewed lease deed is set to expire on 31.03.2024, the 2nd respondent has called for fresh public tender process, but failed to attract any bidders twice and called second round of tendering process on 02.03.2024 by modifying the Right of First Refusal (in short 'RoFR'). Under Clause 1.1.6 of the March, 2024 Tender documents, the petitioner was conferred with a First Right of Refusal, subject to matching the highest rate quoted in the bidding process and an option to renew the lease in the Demised premises for a period of 20 years, instead of 10 years that was informed in December, 2023 and February, 2024 tendering processes. However, just