Telangana High Court
WP/28776/2009 of Smt.M.Satyavathi Vs The Bhimavaram Municipality, represented by its on 31 December 2009
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28776 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner was granted lease in respect of certain amenities vis-à-vis a municipal contract at Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. A lease deed was executed on 11.11.2007 to be in force up to 30.11.2010. The
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
WRIT PETITION No.28776 of 2009
The petitioner was granted lease in respect of certainamenities vis-à-vis a municipal contract at Bhimavaram, WestGodavari District. A lease deed was executed on 11.11.2007 tobe in force up to 30.11.2010. The petitioner states that onaccount of commissions and omissions on the part ofBhimavaram Municipality, the first respondent herein, the leasecould not be worked out and she sustained huge losses. A suitis said to have been filed as regards some of the grievances. The cause of action for the petitioner to file this writ petition isthat the respondents have locked the park on 19.12.2009 andprevented entry of the petitioner into it.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Standing Counsel for the Municipality.
By locking the park, the first respondent has lived up toits expectations. A culture has developed in the Municipalitiesand other local authorities in the State, wherein providing publicamenities is treated as the liability of the worst order and everypossible effort is made to collect the amount in one form or theother. There cannot be any justification for the Municipality inlocking the park, even if there was any basis for preventing thepetitioner from working out the lease.
It is not in dispute that the lease in favour of thepetitioner is valid up to 30.11.2010. The petitioner does notdispute that certain amounts are due from her. Unless they arepaid, she cannot be permitted to operate the lease.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that thepetitioner shall be entitled to exercise her rights under the leaseon payment of the amount due in three instalments up to31.03.2010. The lock shall be opened and the petitioner shallbe permitted to commence the operation as and when she paysone-third of the amount due. The second instalment shall bepaid within one month thereafter and the third, two monthsthereafter. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________
L.NARASIMHA
REDDY,JDt:31.12.2009
Note: Issue cc in three days.(B/o)kdl