Mandamus Issued Compelling Municipal Authority to Decide Lease Renewal Application within Stipulated Timeline

The petitioner was originally granted a lease for the terrace of 20 shops at Pushpak Bus Stand, Burhanpur, in 1990.

Due to structural collapses, the Municipal Corporation, Burhanpur, offered an alternative site at the Nehru Hospital auditorium terrace via a lease agreement dated January 20, 1995, followed by a formal 30-year lease deed.

Upon the expiration of the lease, the petitioner applied for renewal on September 3, 2024, followed by a reminder on February 13, 2025.

Although a six-member committee constituted by the Commissioner had submitted a report regarding the allotment on April 16, 2021, no decision on the renewal application was made by the authorities.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a Mandamus to compel the respondent to decide on the renewal application.

1. Whether the respondent authority is legally obligated to decide on a pending application for lease renewal within a reasonable timeframe.

2. Whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct a time-bound disposal of the petitioner’s representation.

The court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers High Courts to issue directions or writs for the enforcement of rights and legal duties.

The court applied the principle of administrative fairness and accountability, holding that a competent authority cannot indefinitely keep an application for lease renewal pending.

It emphasized that administrative decisions must be concluded through speaking and reasoned orders after affording the parties a fair hearing.

The court observed that the petitioner had been in possession of the leased premises for the full 30-year term and had submitted his renewal applications in a timely manner.

It noted that despite the existence of a committee report from 2021 examining the validity of the earlier allotment, the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation had failed to take a final decision for nearly two years.

The court reasoned that the petitioner's request was "fair and bona fide" and that administrative inertia in deciding such applications is legally untenable.

Consequently, without adjudicating the merits of the renewal itself, the court determined that the authority must be compelled to discharge its duty to process the application according to law.

The court held that the decision must be made in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity for a hearing to all concerned parties, and must be communicated via a speaking and reasoned order.