IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY TWENTYFIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 6 5 1 OF 2009. Between: M.Venkateswarlu, s/o M.Veerappa Aged about 42 years, 0cc. BSNL STD Telephone Booth License Holder, State Central Library Premises, Afzalgunj, Hyderabad. …. Appellant V/s. The Secretary to Government, Roads & Buildings Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. …. Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. VV.Narsimha Rao Counsel for the Respondent: Govt. Pleader for Roads Buildings THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 6 5 1 OF 2009. J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon'ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari) The writ appeal is filed against the order dated 02-12-2008 passed in WP.No. 12793 of 2003 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing that the appellant-petitioner 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 in view of the judgment and decree dated 12-3-2001 passed by the III-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which as confirmed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, through judgment and decree in A.S.No.143 of 2001 and the leaned single Judge while dismissing the main writ petition granted three months time to vacate the premises subject to the condition that an undertaking to that effect is submitted before the second respondent, within one week from the date of order. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ appeal is filed. 2. The main writ petition has been filed seeking mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the representation dated 19-6-2003 seeking permission to continue him to carry on STD Booth at the premises of State Central Library, Afzalgunj, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and further to direct the respondents to permit him to continue to carry on STD Booth at the premises of the State Central Library, Afzalgunj, Hyderabad. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant-petitioner is a physically handicapped person and he is having aged parents and they are dependents besides his wife and minor children are depending upon him. It is stated that he studied SSC, unemployed and as of now he is aged about 44 years. It is stated that he has been allotted Public Call Office under the scheme of Telecommunication Department, which is meant for physically handicapped and unemployed persons. Since 1990, he is running BSNL STD Telephone Booth in the premises of State Central Library, Afzalgunj, Hyderabad, but the lease period granted by R& B Department had been expired on 31-5- 1997, therefore, he requested the respondents to permit him to conduct the business by extending the lease period, as he paid rent till date and there is no outstanding of arrears of rent. 4. It is stated that in similar set of circumstances, identical representations were made and the Government passed orders by extending the lease period. For instance, G.O.Rt.No. 251, TR&B (B-II) Department, dated 11- 3-2003 and GO.Rt.No.1320, TR&B (B-II) Department, dated 05-12-2007 were issued granting orders in favour of physically handicapped person in Malakpet colony, Hyderabad. 5. It is further stated that there is threat of eviction by the officials of the respondents and frequently the subordinates of respondents are visiting the premises and at any moment he may be dispossessed. Hence, the balance of convenience could be that he is in possession since 1990 and that till the respondents decides upon his representation, he may be permitted to continue the STD business in the existing premises without any interference by the respondents and its subordinates. It is also stated that his entire family is depending upon his avocation and there is no other source of livelihood and more so he being a physically handicapped person, he requested the respondents to consider his case under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also to treat his case on par with other cases, which were considered in GO.Rt.No.251, TR&B (B-II) Department, dated 11-3-2003 and GO.Rt.No.1320, TR&B (B-II) Department, dated 05-12-2002. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the lease granted by the R & B Department has been expired on 31-5-1997 and after expiry, the appellant made representations seeking extension of lease based on the scheme, namely; “Award of STD Booth and PCO” evolved by the Government of India, Ministry of Communication, New Delhi, vide No. 31-13/91 PHS dated 24-7-1993 but the respondents did not consider extension of lease. The learned counsel submits that in similar set of circumstances, wherein several cases in which lease was granted to the physically handicapped persons vide GO.Rt.No.251, T&B (B-II) Department, dated 11-3-2003 and another GO.Rt.No.1320 TR&B (B-II) Department, dated 05-12-2004 renewal was granted but in the case of the appellant, the respondents did not consider, which is a discrimination as provided under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that due to imposition of ban for leasing out small bits/pieces of R & B land to the unemployed persons on monthly lease, the respondents sought to terminate the lease, therefore, the appellant filed OS.No.1594 of 1997 on the file of the Court of VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking injunction against the respondents. Initially the appellant was granted injunction in his favour and as such he continued the STD booth but ultimately the said suit was dismissed on 12-3-2001. Thereafter, he filed AS.No.143 of 2001 on the file of the Court of XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad but the same was dismissed on 25-11-2002. While things stood thus, the appellant after lifting of ban, filed fresh representation on 19-6- 2003 and also sought to grant fresh lease in pursuance of GO.Rt.No.251, dated 11-3-2003 and GO.Rt.No.1320, TR & B Department, dated 15-12-2002 granted in favour of physically handicapped person of Malakpet. When the said representation was not considered, he filed WP.No.12793 of 2003 seeking mandamus. The learned single Judge by an order dated 02-12- 2008 passed in WP.No.12793 of 2003 granted interim direction in his favour and since then he is running his telephone booth without any complaint. Subsequently, the learned single Judge, by an order dated 02-12-2008 dismissed WP.No.12793 of 2003 mainly taken into consideration the concurrent judgment and decree of the courts below, which are not a factor for granting of fresh lease in view of granting fresh lease to other persons vide GO.Rt.No.34 dated 13-1-2004. The learned single Judge ought to have considered the physical disability of the appellant when he is a physically handicapped person and that his entire family is depending upon him, as he got right to seek livelihood/employment under the Central Act, namely; The persons with disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and more particularly the learned single Judge ought to have granted fresh lease by taking into consideration GO.Ms.No.251, dated 11-3-2003 and GO.Rt.No. 1320, dated 15-12-2000. Further the learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in SAIBABA V/s. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA[1]. 8. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for R & B submitted that all the operators of telephone booths were directed to vacate the premises, which are being misused by the persons in the Central Library, Afzalgunj, Hyderabad. It is also stated that as a matter of fact, there are no fresh telephone booths being granted to any person but however in view of the fact that the appellant being physically handicapped person already made representation on 19-6-2003 for allotment of STD booth. 9. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that this writ appeal can be disposed of with a direction to consider the representation dated 19-6-2003 submitted by the appellant seeking grant of fresh lease on par with others in pursuance of GO.Ms.No.251, dated 11-3-2003 and GO.Rt.No. 1320, TR&B Department, dated 15-12-2002 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, positively within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and intimate the same to the appellant under due and proper acknowledgement, as he is a physically handicapped and unemployed person, he cannot be made to run from pillar to post. The order dated 02-12-2008 passed in WP.No.12793 of 2003 by the learned single Judge is set aside. 10. Accordingly, with the above direction, the writ appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI _______________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 21-10-2009. I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 6 5 1 OF 2009. J U D G M E N T of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon'ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari) COMPUTER No. 43 21-10-2009. I s L [1] ) AIR 2003 (SC) 1623