IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11545 of 2006 Between: Sree Ramalakshmi Parvathi Mahila Mandali, rep.by its President Desamsetty Ayyalu, W/o.Sominaidu, R/o.Duppituru, Atchutapuram mandal, Visakhapatnam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Parishad Developmnet Officer, Atchutapuram Mandal Parishad office, Atchutapuram Mandal Visakhapatnam District 2 The Panchayat Secretary, Duppituru, Atchutapuram Mandal Visakhapatnam District 3 The Station House Officer, Atchutapuram P.S., Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in directing the petitioner to handover its building to R3 as highhanded illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents herein not to insist upon the petitioner to handover the building belonging to the petitioner society without following due process of law Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.V.SUBRAHMANYA NARUSU Counsel for the Respondents: MR.M.PRABHAKAR RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is a mahila mandali. It is stated to have constructed a building over the land acquired by it for the purpose of carrying out its activities viz., collection of milk and supplying it to the dairy farms. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent is requiring them to handover the premises alleging that political activities are being carried out in it. It is alleged that no written communication was issued and only through oral communications at the instance of the local MLA, steps are being taken to compel the petitioners to handover the possession. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Though notice before admission was ordered way back on 13-06-2006, no counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the respondents. The petitioner alleges that the 3rd respondent is compelling them to vacate the premises through oral instructions. Even assuming that the petitioner is not entitled to continue in the premises, the respondents cannot evict them unilaterally. Written communications or notices are to be issued duly intimating the reasons as well as the provision of law. If any criminal activity is noticed, cases are to be registered under the concerned provisions. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondents herein shall not interfere with the activities of the petitioner nor shall they compel the petitioner to handover the possession of the premises without issuing any written communication. L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 30-10-2008 ks ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Mandal Parishad Developmnet Officer, Atchutapuram Mandal Parishad office, Atchutapuram Mandal Visakhapatnam District 2 The Panchayat Secretary, Duppituru, Atchutapuram Mandal Visakhapatnam District 3 The Station House Officer, Atchutapuram P.S., Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 4 Two CD copies.