IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14050 of 2009 Between: 1 A.Raghunath S/o.A.Narsimha R/o.12-1-147 Shanthi nagar, Secunderabad 2 A.Sri Rangam S/o.A.Narsimha R/o.12-1-1418 Shanthi nagar, Secunderabad 3 B.Ramchander S/o.Late Samba Shivaiah R/o.3-3-825 General bazar, Secunderabad 4 H.Gowri Shanker S/o.Nagabhushanam R/o.214, Block I Shanth Gordam Nacharam, Hyderabad 5 Mohd.Zaker S/o.Mohd.Sardar R/o.H.No.17-1-178/m/1 Srinagar, Hyderabad 6 Mohd.Hameed Khan S/o.jamal Khan R/o.H.No.1-8-405/19/C Prakash nagar, Begumpet, Secunderabad 7 D.Srinivas S/o.R.V.Krishna (Late) R/o.6-1-132/9/101 Padmaraonagar Secunderabad 8 K.Srinivas S/o.K.Ashok Kumar R/o.11-1-388, Mylargadda Secunderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Registrar (Management), High Court of AP High Court Building at Hyderabad 2 The Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Puranhaveli Hyderabat 3 The 1st Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court Marredpally, at Secunderabad .....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 issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction and : a. By declaring the action of the respondents in asking the petitioners to remove their respective Sheds/stalls in Secunderabad Court premises, at Marredpally, Secunderabad as illegal, and unconstitutional b. To direct the Respondents not to demolish or remove the existing sheds and stalls of petitioners lying in Secunderabad Court premises at Marredpally, Secunderabad till the disposal of the their representation dated 10.12.2008 and 27.12.2008 as per law and c. To direct the respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner representations dated 10.12.2008 and 27.12.2008 and to dispose of the same as per law, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.WASIM AHMED KHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: G.VIDYASAGAR (SC FOR APHC) The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in asking them to remove their respective sheds/stalls in Secunderabad Court premises, at Marredpally, Secunderabad, as illegal, and unconstitutional; to direct the respondents not to demolish or remove the existing sheds and stalls of the petitioners lying in Secunderabad Court premises till the disposal of their representations dated 10.12.2008 and 27.12.2008, and also to direct respondent No.1 to consider their representations dated 10.12.2008 and 27.12.2008 and dispose of the same as per law. It is the case of the petitioners, who are 8 in number, that they are working as Computer Job Typists, Stamp Vendors, Notaries, Law Books Vendors etc., in Secunderabad Court premises under valid license/permit on a ground rent of Rs.2,000/- per year as license fee. Their licenses were not renewed after 31.12.2007 in view of Circular dated 18.06.2007, under which, the High Court directed for removal of the shops and stalls within the Court premises after the expiry of the licenses and not to make any further allotment to such licensees and not to renew the same, since there is shortage of space and on account of explosion of litigation and increase in number of Lawyers and litigants, the space is required by the courts for their own use. Thereafter, the High Court issued another Circular dated 23.04.2008 permitting to run one canteen and one Xerox machine in the Court premises subject to fulfilling certain terms and conditions. Aggrieved by the same, the existing Job Typists, Stamp Vendors, Notaries, Law Book sellers etc., have approached this Court and filed W.P.No.1316 of 2008 and the same was dismissed, against which, they filed W.A.No.254 of 2008. They also filed W.P.Nos.10399, 10130 and 18873 of 2008 and W.A.No.333 of 2008. During the pendency of the said cases, the High Court reconsidered its earlier Circulars dated 03.09.1999, 18.06.2007 and 23.04.2008, and in supersession of the same, issued another Circular in R.C.No.499/06-D-II(B), dated 08.08.2009 permitting the Bar Association to run one canteen and one Xerox machine only in Court premises on payment of nominal rent fixed by the Units Head, and apart from that the Unit Heads were directed that if any representation is made for allotment of space for job typists, they shall consider the same as to the number of job typists that may be accommodated as per the need and send proposals to the High Court for approval of the concerned Portfolio Judge and on such approval permission shall be granted after fixing a reasonable rent. It is the further case of the petitioners, who are also parties to the said Writ Appeal No.254 of 2008 and batch, that in view of the Circular dated 08.08.2008 issued by the High Court making a provision for providing space on the need basis, the said Writ Appeal and batch were dismissed permitting the petitioners to submit representations to the respondents so as to enable the respondents to consider the same on merits. The grievance of the petitioners is that in pursuance of the order dated 15.10.2008 passed by this Court in the above said Writ Appeal and batch, they have made representations to the respondents on 10.12.2008 and 27.12.2008, but, however, the respondents have not taken any action so far. Hence, this writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that after issuance of Circular, dated 08.08.2008, the petitioners have made representation on 23.12.2008 also apart from representations dated 10.12.2008 and 27.12.2008, and subsequently they also made reminders requesting the High Court to issue necessary orders for accommodating them in Secunderabad Court premises. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the High Court submitted that pursuant to the Circular, dated 08.08.2008, the individual applications of many job typists in various Courts premises have been considered and the Unit Heads have forwarded their applications to the High Court keeping in view the requirement and the number of job typists that can be accommodated and the concerned Portfolio Judges have approved the same, and accordingly certain job typists were permitted on payment of appropriate licence fee. A perusal of the Circular, dated 08.08.2008 issued by the High Court discloses that one canteen and one Xerox machine were permitted to run in the Court premises by the Bar Association, apart from that, required number of job typists were also permitted on the recommendation of the Unit Heads as approved by the concerned Portfolio Judges. Admittedly, the petitioners are not questioning the legality or validity of the Circular, dated 08.08.2008. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that no legal or constitutional rights of the petitioners are affected, and merely because the petitioners have filed representations, they are not required to be considered and disposed of by the High Court. Further, the petitioners were only licensees and their licenses expired long back i.e., by 31.12.2007 and the licenses were not renewed. Therefore, the petitioners have no right to claim space in Secunderabad Court premises. In view of the same, we do not see any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the High Court from reconsidering/modifying its existing circulars, from time to time, keeping in view, the exigencies and requirements of the advocates and litigants. There shall be no order as to costs. V.ESWARAIAH, J P.SWAROOP REDDY, J Date: 21.07.2009 va