IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18709 of 2006 Between: G. Yadi Reddy S/o Mala Reddy r/o H. No. 2-5-42, Chintalmet Rajendrangar Mandal, R.R. District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Municipal Corportion of Hyderabad, rep by Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad 2 The Chief City Planner, Circle No.6, Municipal Corportion of Hyderabad, Tank Bund Road, hyderabad. .....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 any Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondeet in not providing alternative to the removal of petitioner's pan shop which was granted to me by the municipal Corporation of Hyderabad inthe year 1982 and consequently direct the respondent to accommodate petitioner a place in and around the earlier place to run a bunk, in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 18709 OF 2006 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by G.Yadi Reddy with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not providing alternative accommodation to him to run a pan shop consequent on removal of the bunk which was permitted by the Municipal Corporation Hyderabad in the year 1982 is illegal. 2. The petitioner is a physically handicapped person. He was granted temporary permission for installation of pan bunk by the Special Oﬃcer, MCH in his proceedings NO. 253/TP/E1/81, dated 26-4-1982. He continued the bunk upto the month of May, 2006. His bunk came to be removed on 18-5- 2006. Pursuant to the direction given by a Division Bench of this Court, he submitted representation for allotment of alternative vacant place near about the earlier place to establish his bunk. There being no action on the part of the respondents, he approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer stated supra 3. Rule nisi came to be issued on 11-9-2006. An interim direction came to be issued on the even date directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28-8-2006 vide order in W.P.M.P.No. 2352 of 2006. 4. The respondents ﬁled counter. One V.B. Sharma has sworn to the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the respondents. It is stated in the counter aﬃdavit that the bunk of the petitioner came to be removed since it was causing inconvenience to the vehicular traﬃc and pedestrian and also general public. Para 3 of the counter affidavit needs to be noted and it is thus: “ In reply to paragraphs 3 to 5 of the aﬃdavit, with regard to the directions given by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court, it is respectfully submitted that as of now there is no alternative place available within the control of the 1st respondent Corporation. Therefore, if the petitioner procures the site for himself and makes application for obtaining licence to run bunk on that place, this respondent will consider the said application and grant licence as per law. There is no alternative vacant site available near about the earlier place of the petitioner and in fact which is also comes under foot-path and if at all this respondent permit the petitioner to continue his business on such locations then it may further cause inconvenience to the public and free ﬂow of vehicular traﬃc. That apart the same amounts to violating the directions given by the Hon’ble Division Bench. The other allegations made by the petitioner against this respondent are not supported by any material and denied and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. Under the above circumstances, it is humbly submitted that this Respondent acted in good faith and the impugned order cannot be said to be violative of principle of natural justice, and it is prayed that this hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition and pass such other order or orders as may deems ﬁt and proper in the interest of justice.” 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner carried on the business in the bunk from 1982 to 2006 and because of the removal of the Bunk, the petitioner is deprived of his livelihood and therefore, necessary direction is required to be given to respondents 1 and 2 to provide alternative space to the petitioner so as to carry on his business. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the representation ﬁled by the petitioner has been considered and he has been informed that no vacant space available to consider his request. 8. Writ of mandamus is a pre-empty order of the Court commanding some body to do that which he is under a clear legal duty to do. In order to obtain a writ or order in the nature of ‘Mandamus’ the applicant must satisfy the following conditions;. 1) the applicant must show that he has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty ( as distinguished from ,discretion) by the party against when the mandamus is sought, and such right must be subsisting on the date of petition. 2) the duty that may be enjoined by Mandamus may be imposed by the constitution, a statute, common law or by rules or orders having the force of law. 9. Indisputably the bunk of the petitioner came to be removed since it was causing obstruction to the free ﬂow of traffic. 10. In that view of the matter, the action of the respondents cannot be found fault. With regard to provide alternative space, the respondents have stated in the counter aﬃdavit that as on this day there is no alternative vacant space. 11. In that view of the matter, no mandamus can be issued to the petitioner to provide alternative space to him. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 15th October, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 18709 OF 2006 15th October, 2008.