IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4489 of 2008 Between: 1 Dodda Narayana Rao S/o. Appaiah Rythu Sangham, Nalgonda District. R/o. Chinkoor (V&M), Nalgonda District. 2 Md. Khaja Nizamuddin, S/o. Sattar Huzurnagar, R/o. Lingagiri Village, Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Department of Agriculture, Rep. by its Joint Director of Agriculture, Nalgonda. 2 The District Collector, Nalgonda District. 3 The Member of Zilla Parishat Territorial Constancy, Mandal Prajaparishad Office, Huzurnagar, Nalgonda 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 to call for the records from 1st and 2nd respondents and issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the proceedings of 1st respondent vide Lr.No.D2/2177/06, dated 07.02.2008 permitting the 3rd respondent to construct and lease out the premises as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and arbitrary and without jurisdiction, and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) This is a public interest litigation wherein the order dated 7-2-2008 passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Agriculture has been challenged. According to the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, by virtue of the impugned order, respondent No.3 has been given on lease some space in a godown belonging to the department of Agriculture. It is also his case that an oﬃce constructed in the said godown is to be shifted. It has also been further submitted that upon construction of a wall, there will be an office in the said godown. In pursuance of a copy of the petition received, learned Government Pleader has taken instructions from the concerned department and has submitted that no space has been leased from the godown in question in favour of respondent No.3. Thus it is very clear that the apprehension of the petitioner that some space forming part of the godown belonging to the State has been leased or is being leased is not correct. The said grievance, therefore, does not survive. It has been further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that there is no proposal with regard to shifting of any oﬃce from the godown. Thus the apprehension with regard to shifting of the office is also not correct. We do not ﬁnd any material in the petition to the eﬀect that space from the godown has been leased in favour of respondent No.3 or there is any proposal to shift the oﬃce. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the petition deserves to be rejected. Needless to say that if there is any move in future with regard to grant of lease of any space in the godown in question to respondent No.3 in an unauthorized manner, it will be open to the petitioners to approach this Court with relevant material and the ground on which the petitioners feel that the space should not be leased. For the aforestated reasons, we do not ﬁnd any substance in the petition. The petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. ______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 14th October, 2008. GRR