IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 27330 of 2008 Between: 1 P.Raja Naidu S/o.Gangu Naidu R/o.1-145, Mangalpalem Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District. 2 T.Satyavathi W/o.Hanumantha Rao R/o.Near Devi Temple, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District. 3 Balreddy Raja Naidu S/o.Varahalu R/o.Near Devi Temple, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District. 4 Manga Lakshmi W/o.late Sundar Rao R/o.Near Devi Temple, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District. 5 Gavara Venkataramana S/o.G.Byragi R/o.Near Devi Temple, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. The East Coast Railways, represented by its General Manager, Visakhapatnam. 2. The Asst. Divisional Engineer / Track, The East Coast Railways, Waltair, Visakhapatnam. .....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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities particularly the 2nd respondent authority in issuing proceedings No. UL/3/425 dated 7.10.2008 directing the petitioners to stop running wine shops as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 19 (1)(g) of Constitution of India and to set aside the same and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioner's business in leased premises bearing plot Nos. 9, 13, 14, 18 and 20 of Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District respectively and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.BALAJI MEDAMALLI Standing Counsel for the Respondents: MR.T.S.VENKATARAMANA The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities particularly the 2nd respondent authority in issuing proceedings No.UL/3/425 dated 07.10.2008 directing the petitioners to stop running wine shops as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioners’ business in leased premises bearing plot Nos.9, 13, 14, 18 and 20 of Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District respectively. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the original lessees to whom the plots were allotted by the respondent authorities about 50 years back. It appears, the lessees and their successors in interest are enjoying the property by paying the agreed rents to the respondent authorities. Since the year 2003, the petitioners have been running wine shops in the plots in question, but the same was not questioned by the respondent authorities. While so, the 2nd respondent authority issued proceedings vide No.UL/3/425 dated 07.10.2008 directing the petitioners to stop wine shop business immediately, otherwise the agreement of plots will be cancelled. Questioning the same, the petitioners approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. Heard both sides. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the plots in question were given on lease to the original lessees only for the purpose of dwelling, but not for any other purpose. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners started wine shop business as early as in the year 2003, and now after lapse of about five years the respondent authorities issued the impugned proceedings dated 07.10.2008 asking them to stop the wine shop business in the plots allotted to them forthwith. Normally any plots will be allotted only for the purpose of construction of houses etc., or to do any business. When once it is the stand of the respondent authrorities that the plots in question were allotted only for the purpose of dwelling, the petitioners cannot use it for any other purpose other than the purpose for which it is allotted. However, since it is the contention of the petitioners that they are running the wine shop business from 2003 onwards in the plots allotted to them, they are given time upto 31.01.2009 either to stop wine shop business in the plots allotted to them or to shift the said shops to some other place and use the plots in question for which purpose they were actually allotted. If for any reason, the petitioners failed to stop or shift the wine shop business and still continue to carry on the same in the plots in question even after 31.01.2009, it is open for the respondent authorities to take necessary action in accordance with law. The wirt petitiion is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 16-12-2008 Gsn.