IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.4016 of 2008 Between: Badigandla Chinnammalu W/o. Satyanarayana, Hindu R/o. Plot No.151, IDA, Ramanayyapeta, Pithapuram, E.G. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 District Collector, East Godavari at Kakinada. 2 Sri Aditya Trade Fair Exhibition, Kakinada, Rep. by its Organizer, G.V.B. Nookla Rao, Kakinada. 3 R.R.B.H.R. Government Junior College, Pithapuram, rep. by its Principal, Pithapuram, East Godavari District. 4 Thasildar, Pithapuram. 5 Pithapuram Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner. .....RESPONDENTS 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 writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents No.1 in issuing the impugned proceedings dt. 18-2-2008 in permitting the 2nd respondent to conduct Exhibition in the land of the petitioner in Sy.No.250/1 situated 11th ward of Pithapuram admeasuring 5808 sq. yards situated adjacent to the house bearing D.No.11-4-1/1 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential order directing the 1st respondent to drop all further proceedings including stay of Exhibition by the 2nd respondent and to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.5: S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.4016 of 2008 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner and possessor of vacant site admeasuring 5808 sq. yards in Sy.No.250/1 situated at 11th ward of Pithapuram, adjacent to the house bearing D.No.11-4-1/1, having purchased the same through registered Sale Deed, dated 01-10-2005. The College of the 3rd respondent is also situated on the same lane abutting the road, at a distance of 400 yards from her site. In between her site and the College of the 3rd respondent, there are three petrol bunks, a hospital, a residential house besides a private school. The 3rd respondent college is having a play ground of its own and the 1st respondent permitted the 2nd respondent to conduct exhibition in the 3rd respondent play ground for a period of 15 days from 24-02-2008 to 09-03-2008 vide proceedings, dated 18-02-2008. The apprehension of the petitioner is that under the guise of such permission to conduct exhibition, the 2nd respondent may use the site of the petitioner. I do not see any such apprehension, as according to the petitioner her site is situated 400 yards away from the play ground of the 3rd respondent and the permission is granted to conduct exhibition only in the play ground of the 3rd respondent. Therefore, I do not see any reason to believe the contention of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent may use the site of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 26-02-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}