THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12101 of 2010 Date:19.07.2010 Between: Dungala Raju. ..... Petitioner AND The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. V. Sai Kumar Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Home Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 5: None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that respondent No.3 has been unduly interfering with the running of his pan shop. The petitioner, who is a resident of N.T. Rajapuram Village, Gandepalli Mandal, East Godavari District, appears to be in possession of a small site in which he is allegedly running a pan shop for more than thirty years. He has averred that respondent No.4 has issued a notice for eviction on the ground that the site in his occupation is required for road widening; that he filed W.P.No.8948 of 2010 questioning the said notice and that the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 21.04.2010 with the observations that if the petitioner’s occupation is not objectionable or the same is not causing any inconvenience to the users of the road, the Tahsildar may consider and allow him to carry on business and that the petitioner shall make an application for allotment of suitable land for establishing his pan shop. Till appropriate orders are passed, the possession of the petitioner was protected. The petitioner alleged that after the disposal of the said writ petition, proceedings before the Tahsildar are pending, but respondent No.3 has been insisting on him to remove the pan shop. In spite of granting time, no counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents. From the facts noted above, the petitioner appears to be in possession of the site belonging to the Gram Panchayat. The order passed by this Court in W.P.No.8948 of 2010 permitted the petitioner to make an application before respondent No.4 to consider his request to allow him to continue with his business at the place in question. As the petitioner’s possession was protected till a decision is taken by respondent No.4, it is not permissible for respondent No.3 to disturb the petitioner’s possession. Respondent No.4 shall consider whether the petitioner shall be continued at the site in question and pass appropriate orders. Unless an order of eviction is passed against the petitioner and the services of respondent No.3 are required by respondent No.4 for enforcement of such order, respondent No.3 shall not interfere with the petitioner’s possession. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.15256 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th July, 2010 GHN