IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.19077 of 2011 Between: M.Chakravarthi ..... Petitioner AND 1.The Government of Andhra Praldesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 4 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C.A.R.Seshagiri Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Medical Health and Family Welfare Counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5: ------ The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in permitting respondent No.5 to continue his college in the premises bearing No.4-8-14, Chowrastha, Hanumakonda, despite non- existence of required permission, as illegal and arbitrary. A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, shows that the petitioner is the owner of the afore-mentioned premises, in which respondent No.5 is running an Educational Institution. The petitioner approached the Rent Control Court for eviction of respondent No.5 by way of RCC.No.10 of 2007, but he was unsuccessful, in this regard, with the dismissal of the said RCC. The appeal filed against the said Order is stated to be pending before the appellate Court. Having failed to evict respondent No.5 from the subject premises, the petitioner appeared to have chosen the indirect method of forcing respondent No.5 to vacate the said premises by ensuring that its activities are closed by the Government. In my opinion, the petitioner has no locus to raise the issue of legality and validity of running an Educational Institution by respondent No.5, as he is not seeking to espouse a public cause. This Court, exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the private disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.5. The petitioner cannot be permitted to use this Court as a forum to force eviction of respondent No.5 in the garb of the latter’s failure to obtain necessary permission from respondent Nos.1 to 4. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.23035 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 8th July, 2011 lur