THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Writ Petition No.16157 of 2007 Date: 28th January, 2008 Between :- Velpula Mallesh .. Petitioner And The Estate Officer (Under A.P.Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupation) Act and the Chief of Estates, The Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., Kothagudem, Khammam District And another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Writ Petition No.16157 of 2007 ORDER:- This Court issued rule nisi on 30-7-2007 and granted interim stay in W.P.M.P.No.20540 of 2007. 2. Heard Sri Y.V.Srinivasan representing Sri Chidambaram, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner and Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao representing respondents. 3. The main grievance ventilated by the Counsel representing the writ petitioner is that as can be seen from the docket order, the principles of natural justice had been violated since the documents had not been furnished. The learned Counsel also relied upon Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968. 4. On the contrary, Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit and would maintain that a Civil suit is pending and also had pointed out to the relevant provisions of the said counter affidavit. 5. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the docket order dt.11-7-2007 of the 1st respondent made in case No.COE & EO/1&2/2007, dt.15- 6-2007 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the respondent to supply whatever the documents replied upon by the 2nd respondent before proceeding with the enquiry and in the above case to enable the petitioner to submit his explanation/counter in the said case and to pass such other suitable orders. 6. The main docket order had been pointed out wherein it was specified that Advocate for the respondent filed Memo for supply of attested copies of documents filed by the petitioner. It is also specified that as directed by me on 2-7-2007, the petitioner filed reply to the Memo filed by the respondent, wherein he has clarified that no documents are filed so far and stated that the documents, if any, will be filed in due course. It was also recorded, however, the respondent has to submit his explanation to the show cause notice issued by me at the earliest stage. Further it was specified if any documents are filed during the enquiry, they will be supplied to the respondent as per law. Hence, the respondent is directed at first to submit his explanation finally on 28-7-2007. Further it was specified in case, if he fails to submit the reply, it will be treated that the respondent has no explanation to the show cause notice issued by me. Further certain other reasons had been recorded. 7. Several averments were made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. An elaborate counter affidavit also had been filed. 8. As can be seen from the respective stands taken by the parties, there appears to be some serious dispute relating to the title. However, it is stated that already the writ petitioner filed O.S.No.242/2007 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, and also filed I.A.No.1211/2007 for temporary injunction. It is also stated that temporary injunction was granted on 7-5- 2007. It is further stated that the respondents aggrieved by the same had preferred an appeal before the Vacation Court, Khammam which was transferred to the regular Court – the Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem after vacation and the same had been numbered as C.M.A.No.13/2007 and the appellate Court was pleased to granted order of status quo ante on 8-6-2007 in I.A.No.581/2007. Several facts, which had been narrated, need not detain this Court any longer for the reasons that the limited grievance of the petitioner is that no documents had been supplied to the petitioner. It is needless to say that the relevant documents if relied upon and produced before the concerned Estate Officer to be supplied to the petitioner to put-forth effective defence. However, in the event of respondents supplying such documents at a belated stage, after submitting the explanation by the petitioner, liberty is given to the petitioner to raise additional objections by way of additional pleadings. 9. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 28th January, 2008 Note: C.C. in two days. (B/o.smr)