THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1435 OF 2011 DATED:29.12.2011 Between: M. Venkateswarlu … Appellant And The Secretary to Government Roads & Buildings Department Government of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Hyderabad and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1435 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) The appellant is aggrieved by an order dt.14.12.2011 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P No.32856 of 2011. 2. The appellant was allotted an S.T.D. booth at the State Central Library, Afzalgunj, Hyderabad. The licence expired on 31.5.1997. The appellant did not vacate the STD booth but instead, filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from evicting him from the STD booth. That civil suit was dismissed by the III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by judgment and decree dt.12.3.2001. The appellant appears to have filed an appeal being A.S. No.143 of 2001 and the judgment and decree was confirmed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 3. Thereafter, the appellant preferred a writ petition being W.P. No.12793 of 2003 apparently for the same relief and that too was dismissed by an order dt.2.12.2008 by a learned single Judge. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred a writ appeal being W.A. No.651 of 2009 which was disposed of by a Division Bench by an order dt.21.10.2009. 4. While disposing of the writ appeal, the Division Bench was of the view that the representation made by the appellant for grant of a fresh lease in the same premises may be considered and a decision taken thereon within a period of four weeks. The respondents took a decision against the appellant and required him to vacate the STD booth by 12.12.2011. This led him to prefer another writ petition being W.P. No.32856 of 2011 and that writ petition was dismissed by the order under appeal. 5. The learned single Judge has observed that the appellant has hung on to the premises from the year 1997 onwards even though he has no right to continue his possession. That apart, it has been noted that while the appellant was allotted the STD booth, he is in fact selling items like cigarettes, gutkas, soaps, stationery items, cold drinks etc., and causing inconvenience to the readers, who come to the State Central Library, and also causing obstruction in the development of the State Central Library. Under these circumstances, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition and gave time to the appellant to vacate the premises on or before 31.12.2011. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is now before us. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant who has reiterated the submissions made before the learned single Judge and who has contended that the appellant is a physically handicapped person and therefore deserves sympathetic consideration. 6. We are not impressed with the arguments advanced. 7. The appellant has been staying on the premises without any licence from 1997 onwards i.e., for more than fourteen years. The appellant has only been litigating and somehow or the other he has managed to cling to the premises much to the inconvenience to the general public, who come to the State Central Library. 8. That apart, the presence of the appellant is stalling development of State Central Library and his presence is also creating a nuisance inasmuch as the appellant does not seem to be running the STD booth but selling various items such as cigarettes, gutkas, soaps, stationery items, cold drinks etc., which is clearly not permissible. We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. 9. The appellant has also not shown us any right to continue in the STD booth. 10. The writ appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous application is also dismissed. __________________ MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ _______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 29-12-2011 bnr