THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14197 of 2006 Date: 31.01.2008 Between: K.J.Srinivas Rao … Petitioner AND The Director for the Welfare of Handicapped, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14197 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to remove the telephone booth installed by the petitioner near the canteen of Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences (for short ‘the Institution’), Punjagutta, Hyderabad. The averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition show that the petitioner is a handicapped person affected with polio and has disability to perform any physical work. His case is that he approached respondent No.1 for allotment of a telephone booth near Security Gate of the Institution for the convenience of Outpatients and Inpatients of the Institution. He further claimed that he and respondent No.2 entered into an agreement for the Public Call Office; that he started running the telephone booth and has been running the same for the last 20 years without any complaint and that the telephone booth is the only source of income for his survival. He alleged that from one month before filing of the writ petition, respondent Nos.2 and 3 started threatening the petitioner to remove the telephone booth from the existing place without issuing any notice and opportunity. The Director of the Institution filed a counter affidavit, in which, he virtually denied most of the averments of the petitioner including his claim that the telephone booth was established on 24.09.1986, his entering into an agreement with the then Director of the Institution and his running the telephone booth for the last 20 years. The Director maintained that the petitioner was not given permission to run a public telephone booth within its premises and letter, dated 29.04.1986 purported to have been issued by the then Director Dr.Kakarla Subbarao is a forged and fabricated document created for the purpose of filing this false case. He also averred that letter, dated 30.07.1984 purported to have been addressed by the Telephone Department is also not genuine. He stated that the agreement said to have been entered into by the petitioner with the Institution does not contain the seal of the Office of the Director or of the Executive Registrar or their signatures and, therefore, the said agreement is not binding on the Institution. It is also claimed that on several occasions, notices were given to the petitioner to submit all the originals for a perusal of the Office of the Director or the Executive Registrar and till today, no such originals have been submitted by the petitioner. Heard Sri Mohammad Qasim, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S.Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel for the Institution. From the respective pleadings, it is quite evident that the fact that the petitioner is running a telephone booth is not disputed by the respondents. It is, however, the case of the respondents that the permission said to have been given by the then Director of the Institution, letter addressed by the Telephone Department and the agreement said to have been entered into, are forged and fabricated. Though respondent No.2 claimed that several notices were issued to the petitioner calling upon him to produce original documents, he did not file any such notices before this Court. Though respondent No.2 denied that the petitioner is running the telephone booth for the last 20 years, he failed to state as to for how long he has been running the telephone booth. It is also not the case of respondent No.2 that without anybody’s consent, the petitioner had unlawfully entered the premises of the Institution, erected the telephone booth and started running the same. Respondent No.2 has not explained to the Court as to why a person who was supposedly started running a telephone booth unlawfully was not proceeded against in accordance with law. Be that as it may, if respondent No.2 is of the view that running of telephone booth by the petitioner is unlawful, he is required to follow a fair procedure recognized by law. Being the head of a Medical Institution, which is, undoubtedly, an instrumentality of State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, he cannot act whimsically to remove the petitioner from the place, in which, he has been evidently running a telephone booth for quite some time. The law is well settled that before any action is taken, which has the result of causing adverse consequences, the person who is likely to be affected by such an action shall be given a notice and fair opportunity against the proposed action. (See STATE OF ORISSA v. DR. (MISS) BINAPANI DEVI AND OTHERS [1] , MANEKA GANDHI v. UNION OF INDIA [2] and A.K.KRAIPAK AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA [3] ) Therefore, the attempt of the respondents in seeking to remove the petitioner from the place in which he is running the telephone booth without following due process of law cannot be sustained. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Liberty is given to respondent No.2 to initiate action according to law to evict the petitioner. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 31st JANUARY, 2008 Note: furnish c.c. in one week. B/o kvni [1] AIR 1967 SC 1269 [2] AIR 1978 SC 597 [3] 1969 (2) SCC 262