ORDER : B. S. Bhanumathi, J. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceeding in Rc.C.14/2025, dated 29.08.2025 issued by the respondent No.7 directing the petitioner to vacate 10 front shops rooms and godown of Nandyal Market Yard, Tekke, Nandyal within a week, i.e., on or before 12.09.2025 and deliver vacant possession of the same, instead of renewing the lease for further period of two years on enhancement of 5% of lease rental on the existing lease rentals as per the allotment as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power and contrary to the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The case of the petitioner, is briefly, as follows: a. The petitioner is a registered society established with certain aims and objectives. The petitioner, in pursuit of the purpose, requested the respondent No.7 to allot shop rooms belonging to it. The respondent No.4 accorded permission to the respondent No.7 to grant leasehold rights to two godowns in favour of the petitioner vide Proceeding No.L.Dis.S-II(1) 2082/2010, dated 20.07.2010, on monthly rent fixed by the respondent No.6. The respondent No.7 allotted ten (10) shop rooms and two godowns, vide orders in Roc. No.53/2010, dated 26.07.2010 for monthly rent of Rs.920/- for each shop room and Rs.12,100/- for each godown, for a period of two years with option to renew the lease with rent enhanced @ 5%. Certain other conditions are incorporated. Since the date of allotment, the shop rooms and godowns have been in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. The petitioner passed resolution No.1/2011-12, dated 30.04.2011, for starting Silpa Sahakar, Silpa Rythu Sahakar, Silpa Mahila Sahakar-MACS, Silpa Mineral Water. The petitioner started supplying essential commodities to BPL families at a discount of 10% on all the essential commodities for more than 36,000 members. It also used to extend loans to weaker sections on nominal interest. The lease has been renewed from time to time subject to enhancement of rent till the year 2024. The petitioner started supplying essential commodities to BPL families at a discount of 10% on all the essential commodities for more than 36,000 members. It also used to extend loans to weaker sections on nominal interest. The lease has been renewed from time to time subject to enhancement of rent till the year 2024. The petitioner has been paying the rent without any failure. b. As the period of lease was expiring on 30.06.2024, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 21.03.2024 to the respondent No.7 to renew the lease for a further period of two years from 01.07.2024. Though, the period of lease expired on 30.06.2024, the respondent No.7 failed to renew the lease for the reasons best known to it. However, the respondent No.2 issued notice in RoC. No.337/2012, dated Nil.02.2025 calling upon the petitioner to pay the enhanced lease from 01.07.2024 till further orders along with G.S.T. @ 18% per annum. The same is also complied for payment of rent. c. Surprisingly, the respondent No.7 issued a notice, dated 25.06.2025 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the shop rooms within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of notice, without assigning any reason. The petitioner filed W.P.No.17123 of 2025 before this Court challenging the notice. An interim order was granted directing status quo to be maintained by all the parties. On 23.07.2025, the learned Standing Counsel for A.M.C. submitted to the Court that the representation of the petitioner was under consideration before the A.M.C. which had been recently constituted and that the petitioner would not be evicted till a decision is taken on the representation and requested to dispose of the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing on the representation. d. The respondent No.8 issued a memo, vide Roc.No. Memo/2025, dated 11.08.2025, calling upon the petitioner to appear before him on 22.08.2025 at 11.30 a.m. and submit its grievance. So, the petitioner appeared before the respondent No.8 and submitted a reply on 19.08.2025 stating that the petitioner is running the society on ‘No Loss no profit’ basis and the object of the society is to educate farmers with up-to-date knowledge of techniques in agriculture and also requested to renew the lease on existing monthly rent of Rs.2,750/- for a shop with increase of 10%. Without considering the explanation, the respondent No.8 issued proceedings impugned in the present writ petition stating that it had carried major and substantial repairs to the ten shop rooms by spending huge amount and it is serving all the B.P.L. cardholders, but, on physical verification, it was found that the petitioner was running super market for profit and storing stock of Super Market in a godown and doing business, but, not doing any welfare activities in the interest of agriculturists. It is further mentioned that the petitioner is serving for the benefit of a politician at Nandyal and that the tenants of the front shop room stated that they had paid rent @ Rs.22,000/- per month for one shop from July, 2022 to August, 2024 and later at Rs.35,400/- per month including G.S.T. and thereby, the petitioner is causing loss of Rs.27,500/- per month for each shop and in total, the loss is Rs.2,75,000/- per month, and thereby, the respondent No.7 is not inclined to extend the lease by two years and directed the petitioner to vacate the shop rooms within a week on or before 12.09.2025. The memo, dated 11.08.2025 does not contain any allegations which are the basis for the impugned proceedings. Thus, no opportunity was provided to the petitioner to deny such allegations which are arbitrary and illegal besides omnibus. The action of the respondent No.7 is beyond the purview of the show cause notice. Thus, the impugned order amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 3. The respondent No.7 filed counter with the averments briefly as follows: The petitioner has no vested or enforceable right for extension of lease. The rights under the lease are purely contractual, time bound and subject to renewal at the discretion of the committee in accordance with the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and the rules made thereunder. The proceeding impugned in the writ petition is in the interest of agriculturists and was passed after due consideration and keeping in view the policy decision to allot the shop rooms through public auction to ensure transparency and augment the revenue. The lease is conditional. The lease shall automatically stand terminated on expiry of period of lease, unless renewed. The grant of renewal is discretion of the committee subject to availability, policy and compliance with rules. The lease is conditional. The lease shall automatically stand terminated on expiry of period of lease, unless renewed. The grant of renewal is discretion of the committee subject to availability, policy and compliance with rules. The petitioner never made any efforts to achieve the aims and objects enumerated in its memorandum of association. The Agricultural Market Committee informed the petitioner through a notice, dated 25.06.2025, that the lease expired by 30.06.2024 and the shops are required to be utilized for the welfare of agriculturists and therefore, they are required to vacate the shops and handover the same to the committee on or before 10.07.2025. The petitioner filed W.P.No.17279 of 2025 before this Court challenging the notice. This Court passed a common order in W.P.No.17123 and 17279 of 2025 on 23.07.2025 directing the Agricultural Market Committee, Nandyal to give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 21.03.2024, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Instead of appearing personally, the version of the petitioner was submitted in writing. The agricultural market committee, Nandyal, examined i) Malireddy Thulasi Reddy, ii) Talari Rama Chandrudu; iii) D.Venkataiah; iv) P.D.Lachi Hussaini and tenants of front shop rooms of marketyard, namely, i) N.Sandhya Rani and ii) E.Amarnath Reddy and came to a just conclusion not to extend the lease. The petitioner has been running a pesticide shop for profit and doing business and running its office. It is not doing any welfare activities in the interests of agriculturists. Furthermore, it is working for the political benefit of a politician at Nandyal. All the previous proceedings pertain to one political party and their leader, Sri Silpa Mohan Reddy, former M.L.A. of Nandyal and former minister. He utilized the shops of the petitioner for his benefit and his family members’ political benefit. The agriculturists stated that they require these shops to fetch income. The tenants of the front shop room stated that they had paid rent of Rs.22,000/- per month for one shop from July, 2022 to August, 2024 and later paid rent @ Rs.35,400/- per month, including G.S.T. Thus, the committee sustained loss. Further, the enquiry revealed that the petitioner is not providing any service to the agriculturists but doing business for the benefit of the politician by paying monthly rent. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Further, the enquiry revealed that the petitioner is not providing any service to the agriculturists but doing business for the benefit of the politician by paying monthly rent. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The respondent No.9 filed a counter with the following briefly stated averments: The petitioner has been paying the meager rental amount to the respondent No.7 committee and got filed the present writ petition with false allegations and with a mala fide intention to get the lease extended in one way or the other. The petitioner has been running the shops for political benefit and also for profit by paying meager lease amount. This respondent had issued the impugned notice, dated 29.08.2025, to the petitioner to vacate the shops within a week, i.e., on or before 12.09.2025. The lease of the petitioner expired on 30.06.2024 and there is no further extension of the lease. The present writ petition is nothing but vexatious on false and flimsy grounds in order to get extension of the lease. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The petitioner filed a reply to the counter of respondent No.9 stating that the tone and tenor of the notice impugned in the writ petition and the counter affidavit would amply substantiate that the request of the petitioner was rejected due to political reasons, but, not for the reasons stated in the notice impugned in the writ petition. The petitioner is requesting for renewal of the lease strictly in accordance with proceedings, dated 20.07.2010 and 26.07.2010 issued by the respondent No.2. As long as the proceedings, dated 20.07.2010 and 26.07.2010 are in subsistence, the petitioner is entitled to get renewal of the lease granted in its favour for the subject shop rooms. Hence, the respondent No.9 cannot contend that the petitioner has no vested right to get renewal of the leasehold rights granted in its favour. The writ petition deserves to be allowed. 6a. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is in violation of the observations of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not put on notice of the allegations basing on which the impugned order was passed and thereby, the petitioner had no opportunity of countering the allegations. He referred to the decision of this High Court in Lance Naik Korrapati Kishore Kumar Vs. He referred to the decision of this High Court in Lance Naik Korrapati Kishore Kumar Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, W.P.No.19079 of 2017, dated 23.03.2022 wherein at paragraph No.66, it was held as below:- “..66) In view of my foregoing discussion, it is clear that, obviously for reasons best known to the revenue department, more particularly, Respondent No.3 issued notice(s) on the ground that the petitioner is ineligible for grant of patta. But, after alleged enquiry, even without giving notice to the petitioner, the third respondent passed orders on different grounds which is impermissible under law and improved the case raising several additional grounds in the counter affidavit, which is nothing but bad under law. The way in which the revenue department passed the order impugned in the present writ petition and raised grounds gives scope for drawing an inference about malafides on the part of the third respondent….” b. He further submitted that when the rent was raised in the said proceeding, the lease ought to have been extended, but, the order also indicates that the renewal of the lease has not been rejected and therefore, fixing the enhanced rent without refusing the renewal of the lease amounts to passive or constructive grant of renewal and that the period of lease left over is very short. It is also submitted by him that that the rooms were developed at the cost of the petitioner and that the petitioner had no opportunity of showing it and also the explanation to the other allegations which are the basis for passing the impugned order. 7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for A.M.C. argued that the lease, unless extended, cannot be treated as extended by mere collection of rent at the enhanced rate as it is specifically mentioned that such enhancement is until further orders. He further submitted that the petitioner failed to physically appear for hearing and whereas the respondent No.7 recorded the statements of the witnesses and came to a just conclusion which cannot be challenged in a writ petition as it is an administrative policy decision. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Fruit Commission Agents Association and others Vs. Government of A.P. and others, (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 511 , wherein it was held in paragraphs Nos.14 and 15 as follows: “14. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Fruit Commission Agents Association and others Vs. Government of A.P. and others, (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 511 , wherein it was held in paragraphs Nos.14 and 15 as follows: “14. Fixation of rent is an administrative function and the Court cannot sit as a court of appeal over administrative decisions vide Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India [ (1994) 6 SCC 651 ]. Hence the view taken by the High Court is correct. 15. As we have held in S.C.Chandra Vs. State of Jharkhand [ (2007) 8 SCC 279 ], the judiciary should exercise restraint and should not ordinarily encroach into the legislative or executive domain. In our opinion fixing of the rent is an executive function and hence the judiciary cannot interfere with the same except on Wednesury principles. There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution and ordinarily one organ of the State should not encroach into the domain of another. Montesquieu’s theory of separation of powers (XIth Chapter of his book The Spirit of Laws) broadly applies in India too.” Further, he submitted written legal aspects of arguments which are covered by the counter and oral arguments. 8. As can be seen from the pleadings and hearing, the grant of lease of the shops and the terms of the lease are not in dispute. After expiry of the lease period in the year 2024, long thereafter, proceedings are issued to pay rent at the enhanced rate till further orders. While passing the same, there was no decision taken to reject the renewal of the lease, instead, a separate notice was issued. It is after the directions in the writ petition filed earlier, a decision was taken on the representation by passing the impugned order. It is clear from the show-cause notice and the impugned order that the reasons assigned in the impugned order were nowhere mentioned in the show-cause notice and thereby, no opportunity was provided to the petitioner to answer the allegations. Merely because, the petitioner was not physically present at the time of recording the statement, stated to be made, it cannot be treated as an opportunity adequate to answer such allegations of the statements. On a totally different grounds, the order of rejection was passed. Of course, an administrative policy decision cannot be challenged in a normal course. Merely because, the petitioner was not physically present at the time of recording the statement, stated to be made, it cannot be treated as an opportunity adequate to answer such allegations of the statements. On a totally different grounds, the order of rejection was passed. Of course, an administrative policy decision cannot be challenged in a normal course. It is an administrative action and not policy decision. When principles of natural justice are violated, the action of the administrative authority is subject to scrutiny by Courts under writ jurisdiction. On recording of statements, if any, the respondent No.7 ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause why inspite of such evidence, could not have been vacated from the shops etc. Though, the petitioner subsequently stated that amount was spent on developing the rooms, there is no denial of the said fact. The rental value of property depends on the amenities etc. Under these circumstances, the order impugned in the writ petition is violating the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. However, it shall not prevent the respondent No.7 from proceeding as per law. It is left open to the respondent No.7 as to what course of action is to be taken as per law. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the proceedings in Rc.C.14/2025, dated 29.08.2025, issued by the 7 th respondent / A.M.C. subject to the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed