IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 26605 of 2008 Between: 1 V.Nageshwar Rao S/o.Suryanarayana r/o.Ear Old Police Station, Chandanagar,Medak District 2 M.Dharma Rao S/o.Venkatapathy R/o.HUDA Colony Chandanagar,Medak District 3 Ranganayakulu S/o.Late Ramakantam R/o.Gangaram village Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District 4 A.Ravikumar S/o.Raju R/o.H.No.9-77/2,Indranagar Chandanagar, R.R.District 5 A.Sattaiah S/o.Estari R/o.Gangaramvillage, Serilingampally Mandal R.R.District 6 Kum.Ramela D/o.Narasimha R/o.Chandanagar village Serilingampally Mandal R.R.District 7 V.Nagaraju S/o.Late Suryanarayana R/o.6-126,HUDA Colony Chandanagar R.R.District 8 Dasaratha S/o.Bheem Rao R/o.Chandanagar Serilingampally Mandal R.R.District 9 A.Ramulu S/o.Sattaiah R/o.Gangaram village Serilingampally Mandal R.R.District 10 J.Mallikarjuna Rao S/o.Gopal Rao R/o.Chandanagar Serilingampally Mandal R.R.District 11 R.Shyam Sundar S/o.R.Satyanarayana R/o.Surabhi colony Serilingampally Mandal R.R.District 12 Narasimha Murthy S/o.Babu R/o.Gangaram village Serilingampally Mandal R.R.District 13 Md.Ali S/o.Ali R/o.Papireddy colony Serilingampally Mandal R.R.District 14 V.Ramakrishna Murty S/o.Late Suryanarayana R/o.6-126,Subhashnagar, Gangaram village, Serilingampally Mandal R.R.District 15 Doolipala Ravindra S/o.Suryanarayana R/o.RTC Colony Chandanagar R.R.District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Zonal Commisisoner, West zone,Serilingampally R.R.District 2 The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Hyderabad,rep.by its Secretary .....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 to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to demolish /remove the business premises sitauted in the road margin at chandanagar of the petitioners without following the due procedure and without putting on notice to the petitioners as being illegal,arbitrary, and is in violation of Articles,14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without following the due process of law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAMCHANDER GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in trying to demolish /remove the petitioners’ business premises at the road margin situated at Chandanagar without following the due procedure and without issuing any notice to the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of principles of natural justice, and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners’ business premises without following the due process of law. The petitioners assert that they are uneducated and eking out their livelihood by doing petty business in and around Chandanagar village of Serilingampally Mandal, for more than two decades. As the petitioners do not have any business premises, they erected temporary sheds with the dimensions ranging from 3 ft. x 3 ft. to 6 ft. x 8 ft. in the open space abutting the main road of Chandanagar. After obtaining No Objection Certificate from the Commissioner, Serilingampally Municipality, and thus, they are carrying on business and eking out their livelihood. Now, the only grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents, without any authority whatsoever and without issuing any notice, are trying to demolish their sheds. Heard Sri V.Ramchander Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Kalpana Ekbote, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, and Sri M.Dhananjay Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA and perused the material placed on record. It is true that the petitioners obtained No Objection Certificate issued by a competent authority, wherein it is clearly stated that the certificate is issued on temporary basis and the Corporation has its right to remove the sheds whenever it is required. So, the No Objection Certificate is a conditional certificate to which the petitioners agreed. Further, Section 405 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act (for brevity ‘the Act’) empowers the Commissioner to remove any unauthorized structures erected or deposited or hawked or exposed for sale in contravention of the provisions of the Act without any notice. The said provision was introduced keeping in mind the unauthorized hawking taking place in metro cities. Hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioners absolutely have no right whatsoever in requesting this Court to allow them to carry on business in the premises for which the respondent-Corporation has given a conditional No Objection Certificate. For the foregoing reasons, I see no merits in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, taking into consideration the poverty and the duration, the petitioners are granted time till 28th day of February, 2009 to vacate the premises on their own and surrender the vacant possession to the respondents. The petitioners are further directed to approach the first respondent- Corporation and give an undertaking in writing stating that they will vacate the premises on or before 28-02-2009. If the petitioners fail to give such an undertaking or fail to vacate the premises within the stipulated time, it is left open for the respondents to remove the encroachments made by the petitioners as contemplated under Section 405 of the Act. No costs. __________________ 05th December, 2008 SKM