WP/27404/2005 of k.Bansilal Vs Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner on 28 December 2005

Conclusion

ORDER:

WRIT PETITION No.27404 of 2005

The petitioner is a differently abled person, who was allotted STD Booth at thefootpath at Lakdikapool, near C.I.D Office gate. When there was a threat of evictionby the respondents, the petitioner filed a writ petition, being W.P.No.10363 of 1997.By an order, dated 25.11.2004, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing thesecond respondent and another to pass appropriate orders on the representationmade by the petitioner on 19.04.1997. After disposal of the writ petition, no furtheraction was taken. However, in January 2005, the Circle Inspector of Police (Traffic)visited the petitioner’s Telephone Booth and allegedly removed the telephoneinstrument, asking the petitioner to shift the Telephone Booth. Again the petitionerfiled W.P.No.2474 of 2005 seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of theAdditional Commissioner of Police (Traffic), the Deputy Commissioner of Police(Traffic) and the Circle Inspector of Police (Traffic) in trying to remove the petitioner’sTelephone Booth as illegal and arbitrary. This Court disposed of the said writpetition on 21.03.2005 observing that the petitioner shall not be compelled to shift the Telephone Booth till the Municipal Corporation allots an alternative site. In thiswrit petition, it is alleged by the petitioner that on 20.12.2005 at about 11.30 am thedemolition staff of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation removed the Telephonewithout showing any alternative site. Therefore, he filed the present writ petitionseeking a declaration that such action of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad(MCH) is illegal and arbitrary.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the communication dated11.02.2005 addressed by the Inspector of Police (Traffic), Saifabad, to theCommissioner of MCH, informing that three places have been selected for beingoffered to the petitioner for setting up Telephone Booth. These places are i) MoinManzil, ii) Telephone Bhavan Bus Stand on the wall pavement of Commissioner &Director of School Education, and iii) Vishalandra Book Depot, Near Liberty BusStop. Learned Counsel submits that the respondent-Corporation did not take anyaction as per the communication of the Inspector of Police (Traffic), and removed thetelephone and also made attempts to demolish the Telephone Booth. The matterwas initially listed on 23.12.2005, and this Court directed the learned StandingCounsel to get instructions in the matter.

After getting instructions in the matter, the learned Standing Counsel submits thatMCH is considering the feasibility of permitting the petitioner to setup the TelephoneBooth (after duly shifting from the present place) at any of the three placessuggested by the Inspector of Police (Traffic), P.S, Saifabad. However, the learnedCounsel for the petitioner Sri Deepak Mishra, representing Sri Koka Raghava Rao,submits that the petitioner is willing to setup the Telephone Booth at TelephoneBhavan Bus Stand on the wall pavement of Commissioner & Director of SchoolEducation. The petitioner may give a representation to that effect, whereupon therespondents shall consider the same, and allow the petitioner to setup theTelephone Booth at new place as directed by this Court in W.P.No.2474 of 2005,dated 21.03.2005.

The Writ Petition, with the above observations and directions, is accordinglydisposed of. No costs.

____________(V.V.S.RAO, J)

28.12.2005