IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20744 of 2007 Between: Zeba Rahman, W/o. late A.F.Rahman, R/o.H.No.11-3-580, Anjuman Ground, Mallepally, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner And 1. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 3. The Inspector of Police, Habeebnagar Police Station, Habeebnagar, Hyderabad. ...Respondents 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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not considering the representation dated 10-9-2007 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 10-9- 2007 and to restore the Library in the premises bearing H.No.11-5-857, Mallepally, Hyderabad. Counsel for the petitioner : None Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri R. Radhakrishna Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3: Asst. Govt. Pleader for Home The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Anil R. Dave, C.J.) This is a public interest litigation wherein learned Advocate, Sri Mohammed Abdul Moqeet, who was originally appearing for the petitioner, had prayed for withdrawal of the Vakalatnama. He was permitted to withdraw Vakalatnama. The grievance of the petitioner in the petition was that the premises in question, which was meant to be used as a library, was being used as a mosque by certain persons. The premises in question belongs to respondent No.1 Corporation. Upon notice being issued, the learned Advocate for respondent No.1 Corporation had appeared and had submitted that the allegation made in the petition was correct. In the afore-stated circumstances, on 6th August, 2008, a submission was made on behalf of respondent No.1 Corporation that the Corporation would do the needful for removal of the encroachment with the help of police. Thereafter, an order was passed on 16th October, 2008, whereby respondent No.1 Corporation was permitted to take possession of the premises in question, and in pursuance of the said direction, on 15th November, 2008, the Corporation had taken possession of the premises. An additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1 Corporation on 15th December, 2008, and in the affidavit, it has been stated that the Corporation is to use the said premises for the purpose of library. We are sure that respondent No.1 Corporation shall do the needful to see that the premises in question is used as a library and shall also continue to use the premises as a library. In the afore-stated circumstances, the grievance ventilated in the petition has now been redressed and, therefore, the petition is closed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 15th December, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. ……REGISTRAR To 1. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 3. The Inspector of Police, Habeebnagar Police Station, Habeebnagar, Hyderabad. 4. Two copies to Govt. Pleader for Home, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 5. Two C.D. copies. ARS