The court mandates transparent public auction for government property allotments, emphasizing procedural compliance to prevent arbitrary dispossession.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents, more particularly respondents Nos.4 and 5, in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their allotted shop Nos.16 and 17 situated at Agricultural Market Yard, Gurramkonda and allotting the same to the third parties in spite of subsisting licence in favour of the petitioners and without issuing any notice as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Act 1966 as amended by Act 14/2015 and Market Rules, 1969 and in violation of Article 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents Nos.4 and 5 not to dispossess the petitioners from their allotted shops Nos.16 and 17 situated at agricultural market yard, Gurramkonda, Annamaiah District by allotting their shops to other persons and all actions contemplating to be taken by the respondents in pursuance thereof and to pass such other order which this Court deems fit in the interest of justice.

2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated as follows:-

a) The petitioner No.1 is the husband of the petitioner No.2. The petitioners have been acting as commission agents at the market yard of the respondent No.4 by obtaining valid commission agent licences from the competent authority. They have been operating tomato business at the same market yard for the past several years under the name and style S.D.S.Tomato Commission Mandi and S.T.R.Tomato Commission Mandi and paying the rents for the shops Nos.16 and 17, market fee and all other relevant charges levied by the respondent No.4. They have never violated or deviated the conditions imposed by the respondent No.4 and the licences are being renewed from time to time.

b) While things stood thus, the respondents Nos.3 and 4, despite being aware of these facts, are trying to allot these shops to other parties. The petitioner No.2 approached the respondents for payment of rent for the months of November and December, 2023. But, the respondents deliberately failed to receive the payments and now, under the pretext of non-payment of the rents, they are trying to allot these shops to third parties. On several occasions when the petitioners personally approached the respondents and requested them to receive the rent, they utterly failed to access the request of the petitioners as there is no response forthcoming from the respondents, the petitioner No.2 was constrained to submit the representation dated 20.01.2024 to the respondent No.4, along with the demand drafts and towards the payment of rental amount in favour of the respondent No.4, requested not to dispossess from the shops as the respondents failed to consider the request of the petitioners, this writ petition was filed.

3. The respondents No.4 and 5 filed counter affidavit with the averments briefly stated as follows:-

The affidavit in the writ petition does not disclose any valid or substantial ground warranting interference of this Court in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The petitioner No.1, proprietor of S.D.S.Tomato Commission Mandi was a commission agent vide licence for the period 2018-2023. The petitioner No.2, the proprietor of S.T.R.Tomato Commission Mandi is not the commission agent and has no licence to act as commission agent at the market yard of respondent No.4. The room No.16 in the market yard was allotted to the petitioner No.1 and he has been doing business in the said room. Room No.17 in th