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. 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 the market yard was allotted to Muneer Dawood who is the brother of the petitioner No.1. It was not allotted to the petitioner No.2. Muneer Dawood died on 17.12.2021. Consequent to the death of Muneer Dawood, on 31.03.2023, his licence was cancelled. As per the rules of market yard, the room allotted to Muneer Dawood shall be allotted by holding public auction. It is false that shop No.17 is in possession of the petitioner No.2 and rent is being paid to the market committee by the petitioner No.2. On payment of deposit amount and licence fee, the Agricultural Market Committee, Valmikipuram, issued trader licence to both the petitioners in the month of January, 2024. It is false to say that the respondent No.4 failed to issue the trader licence till now. On payment of deposit amount and licence fee, the Agricultural Market Committee, Valmikipuram, issued trader licence to both the petitioners in the month of January, 2024. It is false to say that the respondent No.4 failed to issue the trader licence till now. The vacant shop No.17 is being allotted through public auction and the Agricultural Market Committee, Valmikipuram is not trying to dispossess the petitioner No.2. No demand draft and the representation dated 20.01.2024 have been received by the agricultural market committee as stated by the petitioner. Since these respondents have not committed any illegality or irregularity, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for petitioners submitted that after filing of the writ petition, licence of the petitioner No.1 in respect of the shop No.16 was renewed and therefore, the relief in the writ petition is sought only in respect of the shop No.17. He further submitted that the authorities had knowledge of the death of Muneer Dawood, yet permitted the petitioner No.2 to run the business in shop No.17 and were receiving rental amount in respect of shop No.17, but, it was proposed to allot this shop by public auction. He further submitted that it is only when the petitioners sought renewal of the allotment, the trouble started. He further submitted that as there are no such rules or guidelines for registration of shop falling vacant on the death of the holder of the shop, the petitioner No.2 may be permitted to continue to hold the shop, as there is no default in payment of rental amount at any time. It is also submitted by him that only for the purpose of allotment of the shop to third persons, the respondents authorities are proceeding with the auction and failed to consider the request of the petitioner No.2 for allotment of the shop in her name. Therefore, he further submitted that till proper guidelines are framed by the state government in this regard as directed by this Court in W.P.No.20354 of 2025 dated 17.11.2025, the petitioner No.2 may be permitted to continue business in the shop No.17 and directed the respondents to consider her representation for allotment of this shop in her name and till such time not to dispossess her from the shop. 5. 5. The learned standing counsel for agricultural market committee submitted that the petitioner No.2 continued the business in shop No.17 suppressing the fact of death of the original allottee and even in the facts stated in the affidavit, there is no reference to the death of the original allottee. He further submitted that as per the guidelines of allotment of a vacant shop shall be made through public auction as per the Circular in Rc.II(2)2425/87 dated 20.12.1990 and the decision of this High Court in J. Nabi Rasool Vs. Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing, Govt. of A.P. Hyderabad and others , 2016 (1) ALD 272 , wherein the observations made by this Court at paragraph Nos.5 and 6 read as below: “5. It is somewhat astounding to note that the respondents appear to have not been following the transparent method of putting the shops to auction. This is quite evident from the proceeding in Roc.No.77/2012, dated 19-06-2012, issued by the Regional Joint Director of Marketing, Kadapa, wherein he has referred to the instructions, dated 19-03-2012, of the Commissioner of Agriculture and Marketing, and directed allotment of nine newly constructed shops to the commission agents, who were in unauthorized occupation of the same. One is really at a loss to know as to how the shops, constructed by an Agricultural Market Committee with State funds, are allowed to be unauthorisedly occupied by private persons. It is a matter of grave concern that instead of evicting the unauthorized occupants, the Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing issues instructions to his subordinate officials to regularize such unauthorsied occupation. Such procedure falls foul of the established principle that the State largesses need to be distributed through public auction as far as possible. Yielding to the demands of unauthorized occupants, as in the present case, places premium on lawlessness. Since regularization of allotment of those shops is not the subject matter of this Writ Petition, this Court refrains from interfering with the same. However, respondent No.1 is directed to revisit the decision taken by him and ensure that allotment of public properties is made transparently without succumbing to the pressure being brought by unscrupulous elements of the society. This Court also finds the stand taken by respondent No.2 in the counter-affidavit that if the petitioner pays the arrears, they will allot shop No.34 to him as wholly unsavoury. This Court also finds the stand taken by respondent No.2 in the counter-affidavit that if the petitioner pays the arrears, they will allot shop No.34 to him as wholly unsavoury. Respondents do not appear to have become wiser atleast after the order in WP.No.10178 of 2011 was passed. In the absence of any specific method laid down for allotment of public properties, holding public auction is the best method. (See Ram and Shyam Co. vs. State of Haryana , (1985) 3 SCC 267 and Meerut Development Authority vs. Association of Management Studies, (2009) 6 SCC 171 ) 6. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed with the direction to the respondents to consider allotment of shops in the Market yards by holding public auction.” Therefore, in the present case also the authorities tried to conduct public auction. He further submitted that the petitioners obtained interim order suppressing the true facts; and that in the absence of rules or guidelines permitting the petitioner No.2 to get the shop allotted in her favour on the death of the original allottee who is no other than the brother-in-law, the procedure adopted by the respondents for allotment through public auction in accordance with the circular and the decision of this Court is legal and the petitioners are not entitled to any kind of relief in this writ petition. 6. No reply affidavit was filed by the petitioners denying the fact that shop No.17 was allotted to the brother of the petitioner No.1 and that he died on 17.12.2021. There is no dispute about these facts. The fact that the respondents are aware of the death of the original allottee while receiving rental amount by the petitioners till cancellation of the licence on 31.03.2023 has not been established. Further, the petitioner No.2 was allowed to continue to do business in the same shop. Then, steps were initiated for fresh allotment of the same shop through public auction. Further, the petitioner No.2 was allowed to continue to do business in the same shop. Then, steps were initiated for fresh allotment of the same shop through public auction. Merely because, the petitioner No.2 was allowed to continue in the shop till the allotment in the public auction is made, it cannot be treated as acquisance on the part of the respondent No.4 to allow the petitioner No.2 to run the business in the same shop, as there are no guidelines or rules regarding allotment of shops falling vacant for reasons like death or cancellation of licence for any reason, the petitioner No.2 is not precluded from requesting the authorities to allot the shop to her. Any how, it is for the state government to frame rules in this regard as is suggested in W.P.No.20354 of 2025. Therefore, the petitioner can make a representation to the committee. On such representation, the committee may take a decision on it. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the appropriate authority within 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and thereafter within three weeks, the committee shall take decision on the said representation. Till such time, the petitioner No.2 shall be allowed to continue the business in the shop No.17. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.