IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 28768 of 2008 BETWEEN: 1 P. Rama Krishna Goud S/o. P. Bal Raj Goud, R/o. 5-5-111, Yapral Village, Alwal (M), R.R. District. 2 G. Satyanarayana S/o. G. Venkataiah, R/o. H.No.12-11-368/13, Warisguda, Secunderabad. 3 K.V. Raghunatham S/o. Late Mallesham, R/o. H.No.12-10- 587/85/2, Medibhvi, Seethaphalmandi, Secunderabad. 4 B. Srinivasulu S/o. Swamy (Late), R/o. 6-1-222, Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad. 5 K. Anjaiah S/o. Late Eshwaraiah, R/o. 12-10-333/A, Seethaphalmandi, Secunderabad. 6 G.Y. Swamy S/o. G.D. Thimappa, R/o. 11-4-396, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad. 7 C. Praveen Kumar S/o. C. Mohan Rao, R/o. 38-29-57, Ambedkar Nagar, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad. 8 V. Subba Rao S/o. Venkaiah, R/o. 38-29-57, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad. 9 M. Srinivas S/o. Subbaiah, R/o. 38-29-57, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad. 10 M. Narsing Rao S/o. M. Anjaiah, R/o. H.No. 14-6-155/156, Chudi Bazar, Hyderabad - 12. 11 P.V. Raju S/o. P. Venkatesh Goud, R/o. 5-111, Yapral, R.R. District. 12 V. Rajeshwar Rao S/o. V.L. Narayana, R/o. 29-86/1, New Vijay Nagar Colony, Neredmet, Secunderabad. 13 A. Vamshi Sagar S/o. A. Sri Rangam, R/o. 12-1-1418, Shanthi Nagar, Lalapet, Secunderabad. 14 K. Lakshmipathi S/o. Late Venkateshwarlu, R/o. H.No. 8-3-897/7, Nagarjuna Nagar Colony, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. 15 S. Sai Baba S/o. Late Chandraiah, R/o. 1-3-8, II Floor, R.M. Street, Kalasiguda, Secunderabad. 16 K. Satish Kumar S/o. K. Ashok Kumar, R/o. 11-1-388, Mailargadda, Secunderabad. 17 G. Shiva Kumar S/o. G. Ramaiah, R/o. 8-1105/2, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. 18 Kaleem Khan S/o. Late Jahangir Khan, R/o. 11-4-742, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad. 19 Mastaan S/o. Late Osman, R/o. 10-4-C/55, East Marredpally, Secunderabad. 20 K. Prasad S/o. Gattaiah, R/o. Bhongir, Nalgonda District. 21 Sarveshwar Rao S/o. D. Prakasa Rao, R/o. 25, Dharmapuri Colony, Saroor Nagar, R.R. District. 22 Taj Ahmed S/o. Mumtaj Ahmed, R/o. 4-4-670/1, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad. 23 Hanumanth Rao S/o. Late D. Sri Ramulu, R/o. 88/1 & 91/1, Kakaguda Village, Secunderabad. 24 V. Shyam Kumar S/o. Anjaiah, R/o. 12-11-1477, Jamia Osmania, Secunderabad. 25 D. Karunakar S/o. Rama Rao, R/o. 10-5-76/30, Tukalamgate, Secunderabad. 26 T.S. Rajendar Goud S/o. Late T. Satyanarayana, R/o. G-62, Backside of (Sy.No.930, Surya Temple, Tirumulgheery Village, Contonment, Secunderabad. 27 B. Srinivas S/o. Late Raju, R/o. 12-11-1390/105, Warasiguda, Secunderabad. ... PETITIONERS AND The I Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Marredpally, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction and : a) By declaring the action of the Respondent in asking the Petitioners to vacate their respective spaces in Secunderabad Court premises, at Marredpally, Secunderabad on or before 31-12-2008 as illegal and unconstitutional. b) To direct the Respondent to permit the Petitioner to continue their avocations in Secunderabad Court premises at Marredpally, Secunderabad, till the disposal of their representation, dated 20-12-2008 as per law. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.WASIM AHMED KHAN Counsel for the Respondent: MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Petitioners submit that they are job typists working in the Secunderabad Court under the licenses granted having valid permit on a ground of Rs.2,000/- per year as license fee and their licenses were not renewed after 31.12.2007 in view of the circular of the High Court dated 18.06.2007 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. The grievance of the petitioners is that pursuant to the said circular, their licenses have not been renewed and their shops are sought to be removed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the High Court issued another circular dated 23.04.2008 permitting to run one Canteen and one Xerox machine alone in the Court premises subject to fulfilling certain terms and conditions. The said circular was also superceded by another Circular dated 08.08.2008 in Roc.No.499/06-D-II(B) permitting one canteen and one Xerox machine in the Court premises and apart from that the unit Heads were directed that if any representation is made for allotment of space for the job typists, the unit head 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 subject certain conditions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners have made representations before the first respondent to provide the required space permitting them to continue to work as job typists, as the job typists are essential to cater to the needs of the litigant public and the advocates. He further submits as the offices of some of the advocates are not well equipped having sufficient infrastructure, they resort to the age-old practice of getting their work done through the job typists when urgency is involved. He further submits that on account of proper space not being provided to the job typists the litigant public and the advocates would be put to a great hardship. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and as the petitioners have filed their individual applications, the second respondent – Chief Judge, City Civil Court, who is the unit head of the Secunderabad Court also, is directed to process the applications in consultation with the third respondent in terms of Para 2 of the High Court Circular dated 08.08.2008 and send proposals to the High Court for approval of the concerned portfolio Judge, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order so as to enable the learned portfolio Judge to grant approval or to take a decision. Till the entire exercise is completed, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 6, 2009 DSK