Telangana High Court
WA/1435/2011 of M. Venkateswarlu Vs The Secretary to Government, Roads AND Buildings on 29 December 2011
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1435 OF 2011 DATED:29.12.2011 Between: M. Venkateswarlu … Appellant And The Secretary to Government Roads & Buildings Department Government of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKURANDTHE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.1435 OF 2011
DATED:29.12.2011
Between:
M. Venkateswarlu … Appellant
And
The Secretary to GovernmentRoads & Buildings DepartmentGovernment of Andhra PradeshSecretariat, Hyderabadand another … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKURAND
THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.1435 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur)
The appellant is aggrieved by an order dt.14.12.2011 passed by alearned single Judge in W.P No.32856 of 2011.
2. The appellant was allotted an S.T.D. booth at the State CentralLibrary, Afzalgunj, Hyderabad. The licence expired on 31.5.1997. Theappellant did not vacate the STD booth but instead, filed a civil suit forpermanent injunction restraining the respondents from evicting him fromthe STD booth. That civil suit was dismissed by the III Junior CivilJudge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by judgment and decreedt.12.3.2001. The appellant appears to have filed an appeal being A.S.No.143 of 2001 and the judgment and decree was confirmed by thelearned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
3. Thereafter, the appellant preferred a writ petition being W.P.No.12793 of 2003 apparently for the same relief and that too wasdismissed by an order dt.2.12.2008 by a learned single Judge. Feelingaggrieved, the appellant preferred a writ appeal being W.A. No.651 of2009 which was disposed of by a Division Bench by an orderdt.21.10.2009.
4. While disposing of the writ appeal, the Division Bench was of theview that the representation made by the appellant for grant of a freshlease in the same premises may be considered and a decision takenthereon within a period of four weeks. The respondents took a decisionagainst the appellant and required him to vacate the STD booth by12.12.2011. This led him to prefer another writ petition being W.P.
No.32856 of 2011 and that writ petition was dismissed by the orderunder appeal.
5. The learned single Judge has observed that the appellant hashung on to the premises from the year 1997 onwards even though hehas no right to continue his possession. That apart, it has been notedthat while the appellant was allotted the STD booth, he is in fact sellingitems like cigarettes, gutkas, soaps, stationery items, cold drinks etc.,and causing inconvenience to the readers, who come to the StateCentral Library, and also causing obstruction in the development of theState Central Library. Under these circumstances, the learned singleJudge dismissed the writ petition and gave time to the appellant tovacate the premises on or before 31.12.2011.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is now before us. We haveheard learned counsel for the appellant who has reiterated thesubmissions made before the learned single Judge and who hascontended that the appellant is a physically handicapped person andtherefore deserves sympathetic consideration.
6. We are not impressed with the arguments advanced.
7. The appellant has been staying on the premises without anylicence from 1997 onwards i.e., for more than fourteen years. Theappellant has only been litigating and somehow or the other he hasmanaged to cling to the premises much to the inconvenience to thegeneral public, who come to the State Central Library.
8. That apart, the presence of the appellant is stalling developmentof State Central Library and his presence is also creating a nuisanceinasmuch as the appellant does not seem to be running the STD boothbut selling various items such as cigarettes, gutkas, soaps, stationeryitems, cold drinks etc., which is clearly not permissible. We find noreason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge.
9. The appellant has also not shown us any right to continue in theSTD booth.
10. The writ appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous application is also dismissed.
29-12-2011bnr
__________________MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ
_______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J