IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14838 of 2002 Between: G.Savithri S/o Bhujanga Rao R/o View Point, Ground Floor, VUDA Park, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Prl.Secretry, Municipal Admn, &Urban Devpt, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Vice-Chairman, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam .....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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to the respondents directing them to apply the provisions of G.O. to Petitioners case was originally the intension in issuing the G.O.Ms.No.63, dt: 14.2.1996 and the monthly rentals in terms of the said G.O. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.V.N.NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.SUMALINI REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R: 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by G.Savithri, a physically handicapped person, with a prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus to the respondents to apply the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.63, dated 14.2.1996. 2. The petitioner claims to have taken a shop in Phase One, in the complex view point, at VUDA Park, Visakhapatnam on a monthly rent of Rs.3,339/- per month on 19.6.1989. She has been running an ice cream parlour under the name and style “APPU N PAPPU”. On her committing default in paying the rents certain proceedings have been initiated by HUDA. She challenged the proceedings by approaching various authorities such as Women’s Commission, Consumer Forum and making complaints to higher authorities. Ultimately, HUDA resumed the possession of the premises on 20.7.2002. According to her, she is liable to pay rent @ Rs.2.50 paise per square feet or 15 % of the amount paid by the tenants of the neighbouring shops as provided in G.O.Ms.No.63, dated 14.2.1986. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner I deem it appropriate to refer the relevant portion in the writ affidavit, which reads as under: “ According to the instructions contained in the said G.O. the normal rents that are chargeable to the lessees is not applicable to the physically handicapped persons and they shall be charged either an amount of Rs.2.50 ps per square feet or 50% of the amount paid by the neighbouring shop owners whichever is less. The shop leased out to me by VUDA admeasures 346.49 sft. And if the G.O. is applied the monthly lease rentals works out to Rs.866/- p.m. If the other limb of the G.O. is taken into consideration my neighbouring is paying an amount of Rs.1750/- as the monthly rent and I am entitled to pay only 50 % of the said amount i.e. Rs.875/- only.” 3. Rule nisi came to be issued on 13.8.2002. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has been allotted view point Bunk in VUDA Park, Ph-I on monthly license basis @ Rs.3,339/- and in view of her committing default in paying rents a notice has been served on her and there after possession came to be resumed. Various proceedings initiated by the petitioner have been detailed in the counter affidavit. It is specifically stated in the counter affidavit that notice has been served on the petitioner and thereafter premises came to be resumed. Relevant portion of Para 8 of the counter affidavit reads as under: “ …Simultaneously the complainant was also issued a notice through this office letter dt.18.4.2002 to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the said view point structure by 18.5.2002 as the license granted to her for the period from 1.10.1995 to 1.10.1998 has expired by 1.10.1998. That petitioner has left the premises by herself long back in August 2001 itself closing business and if she did not handover the premises by clearing the dues, failing which in view of expiry of license of, VUDA would exercise its right of reentry. But the petitioner failed to handover the premises before the stipulated date or even at later date. The above said letter Rc.No.2184/89-RI-IV, dated 18.4.2002 was personally served to her through the concerned R.I. Sri.Md.Baba Fakruddin on 22.4.2002 she has taken the notice and gone through the contents and rejected to receive the letter. Thereupon, the concerned R.I. affixed the said notice at her main door which was with resistence. After taking into account of all the factors of violation of the conditions of allotment i.e., production of Bank Guarantee for 6 months, advance rent, entering into agreement and also other violations i.e. construction of unauthorized wall restraining the visitors from going to other stalls in order to deprive their business, change nomenclature of the View Point Structure into APPU N APPU without obtaining the prior permission of VUDA, selling of other licensees allotted items of business and on closing the canteen at her own accord and leaving the premises without paying the dues and without informing the same to VUDA, VUDA once again issued Notice dt.20.6.2002 and sent by post to the petitioner on 26.6.2002. As indicated in the notice VUDA directed the Estate Officer, VUDA to go along with a team of officers before 10.7.2002, after confirming from the Secretary, if the petitioner has not responded.” 4. The petitioner did not choose to file reply affidavit. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the relief sought for in the writ petition is with regard to implementation of G.O.No.63, dated 14.2.1996. Learned counsel took me to the order passed in Case No.29 of 2000, dated 17.4.2002 of the State Commissioner for Disabilities. Much emphasis has been laid on the penultimate para of the order passed by State Commissioner for Disabilities, which reads as under: “ Since the respondent authorities have already passed resolution adopting G.O.Ms.NO.63, M.A. & U.D. Department, dt.14.2.1996, the authorities are directed to reserve 3% of shops/ stalls/bunks coming under the administrative control of VUDA in favour of persons with disabilities as per the provisions of Section 43 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and full participation) Act, 1995 and consider the matter of the complainant.” 7. The petitioner filed the writ petition assuming that she is still in possession of the premises allotted to her on license basis in the year 1989. The petitioner filed the writ petition on 12.7.2002. By that date the respondent resumed the possession of the premises under a panchanama and the same has been served on 27.7.2002. It is explicit from the counter affidavit that the petitioner was not in possession of the premises as on the date of her approaching this Court. But the petitioner in the writ affidavit asserts of her being in possession of the premises as on the date of filing of this writ petition. The petitioner suppressed the fact of the proceedings issued by the respondent resuming possession of the premises in question. In view of suppression of material fact, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 1st July 2009. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MN} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.14838 OF 2002 1ST JULY 2009.