IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20414 of 2008 Between: M.C.H. Market Vendors Cultural Association, Represented by its working President Smt. Ch.Sasipriya, D/o.G. Narayana, aged 46 years, Occ: Shashi Stage Crafts, R/o.Shop No.B4/9, Municipal Market, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, and 35 others … Petitioners And GHMC, represented by Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad, and another … Respondents Order: Petitioners seek a writ petition of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent-Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation in taking steps for demolition of the Municipal Market Complex at Chikkadpally by dispossessing them without due process of law as illegal and arbitrary. Petitioner No.1 is an Association of vendors in the Municipal Market Complex, Chikkadpally and the remaining are its members. They claim to be the lessees of the shops in the aforesaid Complex belonging to the first respondent- Corporation. It is stated that they are doing business in the said complex by obtaining the shops on lease from the first respondent-Corporation from several years and in spite of their longstanding possession; steps are being taken for demolition of the said Complex without considering their representation which was submitted through the first petitioner-association. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the Estate Officer of the first respondent-Corporation disputing various allegations made by the petitioners. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that out of the petitioners herein, only 3 are original allottees and remaining are third parties who have obtained the shops on sub-lease. It is further stated that the respondent-Corporation has proposed for redevelopment of Municipal Markets within the limits as Integrated Markets-cum- Multilevel Parking Places and Chikkadpally market is one among them. It is also stated that the said proposal was informed to the vendors requesting them vacate the shops stating that eligible persons will be relocated to an alternative location. It is also stated that the officials visited the market yard and explained about the redevelopment plan to the vendors and with a mere apprehension of dispossession they filed the present writ petition. Further, it is averred in the counter-affidavit that the market would be redeveloped only after safeguarding the interests of eligible persons and it is found that all the petitioners are in occupation of their respective shops with the consent of the original allottees and their cases will also be considered after obtaining consent from the original allottees. At this stage, the learned counsel for petitioners states that he does not want to press the relief sought for and makes a request to dispose of the present writ petition in the light of the stand of the respondents in the counter-affidavit that the claims of the petitioners will be considered before taking up redevelopment of the market. In view of the aforesaid stand of the first respondent in the counter-affidavit, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: As and when the respondents construct shopping complex where the present building is located, they are directed to consider for allotment of shops therein to the original allottees subject to proof of allotment in their favour. Further, this will not preclude the respondents from considering the claims of others who are claiming possession, by formulating necessary scheme. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) October 20, 2010 MRR