JUDGMENT RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. - Heard Sri Sanjay Surneni, learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, represented by its Manager (Retail Sales) at Visakhapatnam, (in short IOC), Sri V.K. Viswanath, learned counsel for M/s. Prem Agencies, and Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned standing counsel for the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (for short, "GVMC" and its authorities in both the writ petitions. 2. The Writ Petition No. 13524 of 2022 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the IOC for the following relief: "This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of a Writ of mandamus declaring the actions of the Respondent No. 2 in issuing auction notice bearing Rc. No. 1285/2008/Revenue Sec. /Z5 without considering Petitioners representations as being illegal arbitrary violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the auction notice bearing Rc. No. 1285/2008/Revenue Sec. /Z5 issued by Respondent No. 2 and direct the Respondents to consider the letter vide Ref VZO/GVMC Land/Prem Agn dtd. 27/4/2022 and the representations for renewal of lease submitted by the Petitioner and to pass appropriate orders." 3. The petitioner-IOC in W.P. No. 13524 of 2022 is thus seeking a writ of Mandamus against the GVMC/2 respondent with respect to the auction notice dtd. 12/2/2013, to set aside the same with further direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the IOC's letter reference VZO/GVMC Land/Prem Agn dtd. 27/4/2022 for renewal of the lease. 4. M/s. Prem Agencies, 4 respondent in W.P. No. 13524 of 2022, is the dealer of IOC, and is also the petitioner in W.P. No. 7430 of 2022, in which IOC is respondent No. 4 and the GVMC is respondent No. 2. 5. W.P. No. 7430 of 2022 is filed by M/s. Prem Agencies under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: "This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 2 and 3 respondents in sealing the premises bearing D. No. 34/13/10 in Sy. No. 298/B, Convent Junction Road, Situated at Gyanapuram, Visakhapatnam even without considering the representation of the 4 respondent dtd. No. 298/B, Convent Junction Road, Situated at Gyanapuram, Visakhapatnam even without considering the representation of the 4 respondent dtd. 30/9/2021 as mentioned in the notice issued in RC No. 1285/2008/A2/Zone-V dated 10.2020 signed on 9/8/2021 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents No. 1 to 3 to permit the 4 respondent to run the business till the decision is taken by the 1 respondent for extension of the lease and pass appropriate orders." 6. Learned counsel for the IOC submitted that the GVMC leased out its property admeasuring to an extent of 1000 sq. yards situated at Sy. No. 298/B, Allipuram Ward, Visakhapatnam (in short, the site) to IOC with renewable clause, in 1986. The IOC established a retail outlet (in short, "RO") which is being operated by its dealer M/s. Prem Agencies. The lease was extended from time to time upto 30/6/2012 for the lease rent @ Rs.8, 11, 800.00 p.a, which was paid upto 30/6/2012. Thereafter, vide notice No. 1285/08/82 dtd. 12/2/2013 the GVMC directed the IOC to pay the dues of rent, from 1/7/2012 to 12/2/2013 as also to vacate the site and hand over possession thereof. The IOC vide letter dtd. 1/4/2013 requested the State of Andhra Pradesh, for extension of the lease for a further period of 20 years or more and pending the matter for renewal, paid an amount of Rs.6, 08, 850.00 as rent for the period of 9 months, at the then prevailing rate of Rs.8, 11, 800.00 p.a. He submitted that the rent for different financial years upto 2018-2019 was also paid at the same rate. However, for the financial years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, the demand drafts for the rent amount were not accepted by the GVMC on the ground that the lease period had expired. Later on the OIC was informed vide letter dtd. 22/9/2021, that its request for renewal of the lease was pending with the Government, and the Standing Committee of the GVMC ordered for eviction of IOC and to put the site to fresh auction as also to pay the pending dues as the IOC was paying the rent at the old rate. 7. He further submitted that the IOC had also received a demand notice dtd. 7. He further submitted that the IOC had also received a demand notice dtd. 9/8/2021 for an amount of Rs.5, 31, 45, 621.00 towards the arrears of lease rent for the period w.e.f 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2022 and for Rs.84, 38, 516.00 towards interest, although, as per the submission, the IOC had cleared all the lease rental @ Rs.10, 80, 749.00 p.a. with an increase over the rate of rent @ Rs.8, 11, 800.00 p.a. The IOC requested the GVMC to reconsider the demand notice and provide time till 31/12/2021, but, inspite of the matter pending for resolution, the premises of M/s. Prem Agencies was seized on 23/2/2022, who challenged the order of seizure in W.P. No. 7430 of 2022. During the pendency of the Writ Petition No. 7430 of 2022 another notice was published for eviction, although, in the meantime IOC vide letter/representation dtd. 27/4/2022, had requested the GVMC to provide the correct rental calculations as according to IOC the enhancement of rent @ 33 1/3% was arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms. No. 56 dtd. 5/2/2011. 8. While challenging the auction notice, learned counsel for the IOC raised the following arguments: a) The auction notice has been issued i) without considering the IOC communications to renew the lease for a further period of 20 years or more; ii) without considering the IOC's letter/representation dtd. 27/4/2022, on the subject of payment of the rental amount pursuant to the demand notice dtd. 9/8/2021. b) The auction notice, mentions the site as vacant, but it is not vacant as the agency of the IOC with machinery etc., still exists which being the private property of the IOC cannot be put to auction. 9. Sri V.V. Viswanath, learned counsel for M/s. Prem Agencies submitted that the lease period in favour of the IOC was extended from time to time upto 30/6/2012. Thereafter, the IOC requested the Government of A.P, for further extension of lease from 1/7/2012. Pending such consideration, legally there could not be seizure vide proceedings dtd. 23/2/2022. He submitted that the case of Prem Agency depends upon the fate of W.P. No. 13524 of 2022, of the IOC, as the lease was in favour of IOC and its extension is a matter between IOC and the State. M/s. Prem Agencies is only the R.O dealer of IOC. 10. 23/2/2022. He submitted that the case of Prem Agency depends upon the fate of W.P. No. 13524 of 2022, of the IOC, as the lease was in favour of IOC and its extension is a matter between IOC and the State. M/s. Prem Agencies is only the R.O dealer of IOC. 10. Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned standing counsel, submitted that the lease period of IOC after extension from time to time, finally came to an end on 30/6/2012 on payment of lease rent @ Rs.8, 11, 800.00 p.a. The lease was thereafter not extended from 1/7/2012 and the request for renewal/extension was rejected by the GVMC vide proceedings Rc. No. 128/5/08/82 dtd. 12/2/2013. The application/representation of the IOC for extension of the lease was also rejected by the A.P. Government on 9/6/2022. He submitted that there cannot be extension or renewal of lease after 25 years of lease. 11. He further submitted that the GVMC vide letter dtd. 9/2/2021, reminded the IOC to pay the arrears of rental due amount of Rs.5, 31, 45, 621.00 as also to vacate the site followed by another notice dtd. 22/9/2022. The GVMC had also issued demand notice dtd. 8/10/2021 to the IOC to pay the arrears of lease rent of Rs.5, 31, 45, 621.00 to which the IOC vide reply dtd. 12/10/2021 requested for time till December, 2021, but it neither vacated the premises nor paid the arrears of the lease rent. The GVMC, consequently seized the petrol pump by conducting panchanama on 23/2/2022. Further the representation of IOC dtd. 27/4/2022 against the demand notice was rejected by GVMC vide endorsement dtd. 8/6/2022. 12. He further submitted that M/s. Prem Agencies is only the dealer of the IOC and the lease of IOC having come to an end, M/s. Prem Agency has no independent right to continue. 13. He further submitted that the auction notice, is in respect of the lease hold rights for the vacant site, which belongs to GVMC. It's not for the properties of IOC on that site, which, he submitted that as per the instructions from GVMC, the IOC has to remove its machinery, etc., for which the IOC had already been issued notices to vacate the site. 14. Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy submitted that there is no challenge to the notice of demand of arrears of rent/interest or the endorsement dtd. 8/6/2022. 14. Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy submitted that there is no challenge to the notice of demand of arrears of rent/interest or the endorsement dtd. 8/6/2022. He submitted there is also no challenge to the orders dtd. 12/2/2013 by GVMC and dtd. 9/6/2022 by the Government rejecting the renewal of lease. Consequently, there is no illegality in the auction notice, after expiry of lease period. 15. Sri Lakshminarayana Reddy placed reliance on P. Krishna Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary (W.P. No. 6354 of 2009 decided on 25/8/2009), to contend contention that there cannot be any further extension of lease beyond 25 years. He further placed reliance in Amina Marwa Sabreen, (A Minor) v. State of Kerala (2018) 14 SCC 193 to contend that therebeing no challenge to the orders dtd. 12/2/2013, 9/6/2022 and the demand notice/or order the endorsement dtd. 8/6/2022 it is not permissible for the petitioner to raise the oral arguments on that aspect. He further placed reliance on the following judgments : 1. Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. Governing Body of the Nalanda College, Bihar Sharif AIR 1962 SC 1210 , 2. Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana (1977) 1 SCC 486 , 3. Vadlamani Srinivas @ Srinivas v. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi (2013) 5 ALD 746, 4 to contend that in the absence of any legal right the petitioners are not entitled for a writ of Mandamus. He further placed reliance in Kotha Sambasiva Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary 2017 LawSuit (Hyd) 252, G. Silver Spoon Restaurant and Entertainments, rep. by its Proprietor, Shanthilal, Visakhapatnam Petitioner v. State Of A.P, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Velagapudi (W.P. No. 22510 of 2020) to contend that after the expiry of the lease period and that too upto the maximum period, under law the immovable property is to be delivered afresh by holding public auction and for eviction of the erstwhile lessessee, the Corporation need not file a fresh suit for eviction but giving the notice to vacate is sufficient compliance with the due process of law for eviction. 16. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 17. 16. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 17. From the pleadings as also the submissions advanced, the following facts are evident: 1) The lease period of IOC expired on 30/6/2012, 2) The application for extension/renewal of the lease period of IOC was rejected by the GVMC on 12/2/2013 and also by the State Government on 9/6/2022, 3) The IOC has completed 25 years of lease, 4) For eviction of IOC notice was already issued. 5) The IOC's application dtd. 27/4/2022 was rejected on 8/6/2022. 6) The aforesaid orders dtd. 12/2/2013, 9/6/2022 and 8/6/2022 as also demand notice for arrears of rent, are not the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. 18. On expiry of the lease period of IOC and its non extension/renewal having been rejected the property of the GVMC is to be settled afresh by holding the public auction, for which auction notice has already been published. The IOC or/and M/s. Prem Agency have no legal right to object to the auction proceedings. They have no legal right nor any corresponding duty on the respondents. 19. In Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that in order that Mandamus may issue to compel the respondents to do something it must be shown that the statutes impose a legal duty and the applicant has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. It is well settled that for a writ of Mandamus to be issued, the petitioner himself must establish legal right which is legally enforceable. In Mani Subrat Jain (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is elementary that no one can ask for a Mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering the legal grievance can ask for a Mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who owes a legal duty to do something or abstain from doing something. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering the legal grievance can ask for a Mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who owes a legal duty to do something or abstain from doing something. In Vadlamani Srinivas @ Srinivas (supra), this Court on consideration of the catena of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the chief function of a writ of mandamus is to compel performance of the public duties prescribed by a statute and to keep subordinate Courts/tribunals, and officers exercising public functions, within the limits of their jurisdiction. The applicant for Mandamus has to satisfy the court that he has legal right to the performance of legal duty upon the party against whom the Mandamus is sought. 20. In Kotha Sambasiva Rao (supra), it was held by this Court that the lessees of immovable properties belonging to the Municipal Corporations cannot claim, as of right, that they should be extended the lease for periods of three years each for a total lease period of 25 years. In W.P. No. 6354 of 2009 decided on 25/8/2009, the Division Bench of this court held that the transparent public process of granting lease of the schedule property is only by public auction. 21. In G. Silver Spoon Restaurant and Entertainments (supra), this Court held that the settled law is that force can be never used to evict the tenant or lessessee or a person in settled possession but the due process of law is fulfilled when a court hears the matter and there is no need to file a fresh suit for eviction. In that case, the notice was issued to vacate after expiry of the lease period and this court held that issuance of notice after expiry of the lease period was sufficient compliance with the due process of law for eviction. 22. In K. Dhandapani (supra), the Madras High court held that once the license period comes to an end, the licensee has to hand over the possession of the property. The Corporation must take steps to grant license to the shop by calling for a public auction and the erstwhile licenses will always be entitled to participate in the auction and make their bid. 23. The Corporation must take steps to grant license to the shop by calling for a public auction and the erstwhile licenses will always be entitled to participate in the auction and make their bid. 23. The IOC has already been issued eviction notices to vacate the site and therefore in view of the aforesaid judgments upon which reliance has been placed by the learned standing counsel the GVMC has complied with the due process of law for the eviction of the IOC and its agency. 24. As submitted by the learned standing counsel the auction is of the vacant site and not of the properties of the IOC or its agency the 4 respondent. Therefore, the IOC/its agency as the case may be must remove their properties/possession and vacate the site in question. 25. The submission of the learned counsel for IOC with respect to the dispute of arrears of rent/interest, pursuant to the demand notice not being the subject matter of the writ petition is un-entertainable and for the same reason reliance placed by the learned counsel for the IOC in interim order of this court dtd. 23/12/2022 passed in I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in W.P. No. 22418 of 2020 and the connected batch, to contend that arrears of lease rent be directed to be recalculated, is misplaced. In Amina Marwa Sabreen, (A Minor) (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when there was no prayer to quash the G.O. dtd. 30/1/2017, it was not permissible to challenge the validity of the G.O. by way of oral arguments. 26. No case for interference is made out. 27. Both the writ petitions are devoid of merits and are dismissed. The GVMC shall proceed with the public auction in accordance with law. No order as to costs. 28. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.