IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 20953 of 2004 Between: 1 A.Vaidehi, D/o.Nagaiah, Adjacent to MCH parking Complex, Abids R/o.Nimboli Adda, Hyderabad. 2 Smt. N.Heeramani, W/o.N.Kashiram, R/o.Nampally, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad, rep.by its Commissioner. 2 The Additional commissioner (Estates) Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Estate Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 pass an order or direction or writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the applications dated 8-7-2004 and 12-7-2004 respectively, of the petitioners seeking permission to move their existing bunks adjacent to the MCH parking complex, Abids, Hyderabad by three feet from the existing position, by letter No.2361/EO/E2/MCH/2004/1058 dated 3-11-2004 as bad, illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to allot three feet open space on the northern side of our existing bunks adjacent to the MCH parking complex, Abids, Hyderabad on lease basis and pass such other and further order or orders, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.DAMODHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.RAMA RAO GHANTA The Court made the following : ORDER: As per letter No.120/TPS/C6/TRS/92, dated 04.11.1992 produced by the first petitioner she was granted permission to establish a Telephone Booth on the footpath for one year from 4.11.1992. Permission granted to the second petitioner by letter dated 9.9.1992 does not contain period for which the permission is granted. But the conditions in the letters dated 9.9.1992 and 4.11.1992, under which petitioners were accorded permission, are the same. They are: 1. Party should pay the encroachment fee as per the Rules 2. The applicant should not use or convert the same for any other purpose; if converted will be removed without any notice 3. Permission letter with attested passport size photo for the applicant and plan should be affixed in the Bunk 4. The party should not encroach more than permitted space 5. The Bunk should not exceed 3X4” (as per the permission of the second petitioner) and 2 1/2X3 (in respect of the first petitioner) and 6. The Bunk should be erected at where the permission is accorded by the Assistant City Planner, Circle 6, MCH is sanctioned plan. If the party erect Bunk other than the sanctioned plan, the Corporation is at liberty to life the same without any notice. 2. Alleging that respondents are not renewing permission given to them, earlier petitioners filed W.P.No.18967 of 2001. By the order dated 02.01.2002, a direction was given to the respondents to consider the applications of the petitioners for renewal with a direction that they should not be dispossessed from the place where they have been conducting business, pending consideration of their applications. 3. Alleging that the wall to which they erected their Bunks was being demolished by the authorities of the respondents, petitioners made a representation to the Municipal Corporation to permit them to move their Bunks inside the parking complex by three feet from the existing position. Thereafter, they, alleging that their representation is not being considered, filed W.P.No.12154 of 2004. A learned single Judge of this Court by the order dated 15.7.2004 directed the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible. Thereafter, petitioners issued a notice dated 26.10.2004 to the Commissioner to consider their representation and followed it by a legal notice. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad passed the following order on the representation of the petitioners: “In light of Court directions in W.P.No.12154/2004, dt.15.7.2004, the request of the applicants to permit them to move their Bunks inside the Abids MCH parking Complex by 3’ from the existing position has been examined as per rules and their request is not considerable hence rejected. The above Bunks were temporarily permitted to intall on the footpath adjacent to Abids Municipal Parking Complex in the year 1992 [November] on certain conditions, which will be removable at any time”. Questioning the said rejection, the petitioners filed this writ petition. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners, who are physically challenged persons, are being harassed by the respondent authorities by insisting upon them to move their Bunks to other places and are not considering their requests to provide proper accommodation for running their business, and have not permitted the petitioners to move their Bunks inside the parking complex. He contends that the action of the respondents in not giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners before disposing of their representation is in violation of principles of natural justice and so, the impugned proceedings may be set aside and the respondents may be directed to permit the petitioners to move their bunks inside open space on the northern side of the existing Bunks, adjacent to M.C.H parking complex at Abids by three feet. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for M.C.H is that petitioners, whose licence can be terminated at any time, have been permitted to continue at the same place for more than 10 years, taking a sympathetic view that they are physically challenged persons and in view of the traffic problems, Commissioner called and explained to the petitioners that they cannot continue to have the bunks there, and asked them to select alternative spot to establish their Bunks, but petitioners are insisting on moving inside the parking complex, and thereby causing great inconvenience to the public and since the question of granting an opportunity of being heard does not arise on a representation by a licensee, non issuance of notice for personal hearing of the petitioners is of no consequence. 5. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order impugned in this petition is bad for not giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, who are mere licensees, and were given a licence to establish Bunks subject to certain conditions, because question of giving an opportunity of being heard need not be given to a licensee. Moreover, when they were asked to move their Bunks from the existing place to some other place, petitioners made a representation. On such representation, question of giving an opportunity of being heard does not arise, that too, when the order in W.P.No.12154 of 2004 filed by the petitioners does not state that they should be heard before any order is passed on their representation. Therefore, non affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners is not of any consequence. 6. Admittedly, the Bunks of the petitioners are near the Parking complex at Abids. Their prayer, as seen from the petition, is to permit them to move to their Bunks inside the parking complex. Permitting the petitioners to move their Bunks inside the parking complex would eat away the parking area and would cause obstruction to the movement of vehicles, and so respondents rejecting the request of the petitioners to permit them to move inside the parking complex cannot be said to be vitiated by any mala fides. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to set aside the impugned proceedings. 07. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________ C.Y.SOMAYAJULU, J Dated : 04.03.2005 To 1 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional commissioner (Estates) Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad,Tank bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Estate Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 4 2 CD copies RAR