IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 4566 of 2008 Between: 1 P.Krishna Reddy S/o.Hanumantha Reddy R/o.Rayadurg Town Anantapur Dist 2 D.Munwar Khan, S/o.D.Mahaboob Khan, R/o.Rayadurg Town Anantapur Dist 3 S.Ibrahim S/o.Manusab, R/o.Rayadurg Town Anantapur Dist ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner Endowments Department Ananthapur Dist 2 Sri Rani Choultry Rayadurg (V) &(M) Anantapur DIst Rep.by its Executive Officer 3 The Circle Inspector, Rayadurg Police Station Anantapur Dist .....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 more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents 2nd 3 in trying to evict the petitioners from shops bearing Door Nos 9-1- 15/18,9-1-15/19 of Rayadurg Town, Anantapur Dist belonging to the 2nd respondent choultry though the lease is subsisting till 31-3-2010 where the petitioners are eking their livelihood by running petty business in the respective shops allotted in public auction by following due process of law as arbitrary illegal discriminatory contrary to the provisions of lease rules issued in G.O.Ms.No 866, Revenue(Endowments.1) Department dt.08-08-2003 discriminatory and offending Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequentially to direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to evict the petitioners from the said shops till the lease is expired. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.VENUGOPALA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of respondents 2 and 3 in trying to evict the petitioners from the shops bearing Door Nos.9-1-15/18, 9-1-15/18-A and 9-1-15/19 belonging to the 2nd respondent-Choultry in Rayadurg Town, Ananthapour District, though the period of lease is subsisting till 31.3.2010, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners assert that in a public auction conducted on 26.3.2007 for leasing out about 38 small shops belonging to the 2nd respondent, they were declared as highest bidders, and as per the lease agreement dated 18.5.2007, the Mulgis (shops) in question were leased out in their favour for a period of three years i.e. from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2010. Now, the petitioners’ grievance is that though they have been carrying on business in the shops in accordance with law, the 3rd respondent-Circle Inspector, without any authority whatsoever, is trying to interfere with their peaceful possession of the shops and business and threatening that he would demolish the Mulgis so that there will be parking spare for the vehicles in that area. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. From a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and other material placed on record, it is clear that the petitioners are the auction purchasers, and accordingly, a lease agreement was entered into on 18.5.2007 for a period of three years i.e. up to 31.3.2010. When the petitioners are the highest bidders and put in possession of the Mulgis in accordance with law, the 3rd respondent has no right whatsoever to threaten them saying that the place, where the shops are situated, is required for parking purpose. Further, apparently, the area belongs to the 2nd respondent-Choultry within the meaning of the word “Endowment” as defined under the provisions of the Endowments Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs the 3rd respondent not to interfere with the petitioners’ peaceful possession of the shops and their business, without following due process of law. The 2nd respondent produced a letter, dated 14.1.2008 addressed to the 1st respondent wherein it is clearly stated that the 3rd respondent is behaving in a highhanded manner. In the light of the report furnished by the 2nd respondent-Choultry, the 1st respondent- Asst. Commissioner, Endowments Department, is hereby directed to hold an enquiry into the allegation made by the petitioners as well as the 2nd respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In terms of the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ 11.03.2008 Note: Furnish copy by tomorrow B/o bcj