HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 3008 of 2006 AND CONTEMPT CASE No. 300 OF 2006 DATED 29TH NOVEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN M/s. Neighbourhood Committees Association, Rep. By its President, Asula Ranganayakulu …..Petitioner in both and Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada, Rep. By its Commissioner, Vijayawada and anr … Respondents in both HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 3008 OF 2006 AND CONTEMPT CASE No. 300 OF 2006 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner is an Association registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. It is engaged in health awareness, providing civil infrastructure, preventive and promotive and curative health care and other allied social activities. It is stated that inasmuch as the petitioner-association has assisted the administrative projects conducted by the Oversees Development Administration for improvement of the 136 slums in Vijayawada city, the ﬁrst respondent has allotted 450 Square feet of land in the year 1994 for constructions of oﬃce and community hall. It is the case of the petitioner that it has also paid Rs.1.50 lakhs to the ﬁrst respondent for the allotment of the said land. Thereafter, the petitioner constructed oﬃce and community hall and since then it is running its activities from the said community hall. The respondent-municipality has also allotted number i.e. D.No. 65-5-16 to the said building. It is the grievance of the petitioner that all of sudden, the respondents have put the lock to the above said premises without any authority of law. Though the president of the ﬁrst respondent has submitted representation dated 21.1.2006 requesting to remove the lock put by the second respondent, neither any action has been taken on the said representation nor they opened the lock. Hence, this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to open the lock put by the respondents to the oﬃce/community hall of the petitioner- association. This Court while admitting the Writ Petition on 17.2.2006, granted interim relief, directing the second respondent to open the lock put by the second respondent to the subject premises of the petitioner and further directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the premises in question, pending further orders. In response to the notice issued, both the respondents ﬁled separate counter aﬃdavits, in similar lines, denying the averments made by the petitioner in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the Writ Petition. The respondents particularly denied the allotment of the land to the petitioner-association for construction of oﬃce and community hall, payment of 1.50 laks by the petitioner for allotment of the aforesaid land, etc. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner has unauthorisedly occupied the premises without any authority. It is further stated that the respondents-Corporation is not having any obligation for providing free accommodation to the petitioner and if at all any allotment of accommodation is to be eﬀected, such allotment shall be in conformity with the provision under Section 148 of the HMC Act and the petitioner has failed to furnish any such allotment orders. The respondents also denied the averment of the petitioner that the machinery, equipment, documents and other tools are lying in the said premises. It is further stated that the petitioner was given with a notice on 12.12.2005 asking him to appear with full particulars of allotment of the premises under occupation by 27.12.2005, but the petitioner failed to respond to the said notice nor given any reply. Again a notice was issued on 5.1.2006 informing the petitioner to vacate the premises within seven days, failing which taking necessary action will be initiated. To the said notice also, the petitioner did not respond properly. In those circumstances, the respondents after conducting panchanama on 18.1.2006, put lock and seal to the subject premises. Before one day of ﬁling of the Vacate Stay Petitions along with Counter aﬃdavits by the respondents, the petitioner has ﬁled Contempt Case No. 300 of 2006 alleging that the respondents have willfully and deliberately disobeyed the interim order dated 17.2.2006 passed by this Court in WPMP.No. 3708 of 2006. In response to the notice issued in the Contempt Case, the respondents have ﬁled counter aﬃdavit stating that respondents have removed the lock put to the subject premises of the petitioner on 6-3-2006. However, it is stated that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of the public property and utilizing the subject premises for his personal purpose under the guise of an institution/association. If the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of the public property, it is always open for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Inasmuch as the respondents have removed the lock pursuant to the directions of this Court, I do not see any reason to proceed further with the Contempt Case as well as the Writ Petition. However, if the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant, it is open for the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The Writ Petition and Contempt Case are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------------ JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA DATED 29th November, 2010. Msnro