IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12793 of 2003 Between: M. Venkateswarlu, S/o. M. Veerappa, BSNL-STD Telephone Booth Lease Holder, State Central Library Premises, Afzalgunj, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary to Govt., Roads & Buildings Department, Govt. of A.P., Secretariate, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer, R&B, South Buildings Division, Khairatabad, 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 a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner representation Dt. 19/06/2003 for permitting the petitioner to continue to carry on the STD Booth at the premises of State Central Library, Afzalgunj, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of ARt. 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and further direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to carry on the STD Booth at the premises of the STate Central Library, Afzalgunj,Hhyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. AMARNATH GOUD THODUPUNURI Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.12793 OF 2003 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 19.06.2003 seeking permission to continue his STD booth in the premises of the Central Library, Afzul Gunj, Hyderabad as arbitrary and illegal. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, the fact that the premises in question was initially leased out to the petitioner for installing telephone booth has not been disputed. However, it is stated that the lease was terminated in the year 1997 and subsequently the petitioner was called upon to hand over the premises. It is also stated that aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner filed O.S.No.1594 of 1997on the file of the Court of III-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking perpetual injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with his possession and the same was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 12.3.2001. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed A.S.No.143 of 2001 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the same was also dismissed confirming the judgment in O.S.No.1594 of 1997. Thus, it is contended that the consideration of the petitioner to allow him to continue the STD booth does not arise. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. From the material placed before this Court, particularly the judgment in O.S.No.1594 of 1997 dated 12.3.2001 it is clear that the lease in favour of the petitioner was terminated long back and the petitioner was called upon to vacate and hand over the premises in question. The Civil Court after considering all the relevant facts and on appreciation of the evidence, both documentary and oral, produced by the parties held that the petitioner herein was not entitled for perpetual injunction and that he cannot be permitted to be in possession of the suit schedule premises perpetually as against the interest of the original owner i.e., the Government. As noticed above, the judgment was also confirmed on Appeal. Hence, the Mandamus as sought by the petitioner for consideration of his representation cannot be granted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while submitting that by virtue of the interim orders granted by this Court the petitioner has been continuing in possession as on today, requested to grant reasonable time for vacating the premises and handing over the possession to the respondents. Having regard to the said submission, the petitioner is granted three months time to vacate the premises subject to the condition that an undertaking to that effect is submitted before the 2nd respondent – Executive Engineer, R & B, South Buildings Division, Khairatabad, Hyderabad within a period of one week from today. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 02-12-2008 gbs