THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.20535, 20536, 20537 and 20569 of 2008 Dated 13th July, 2011 Between: G.Venkatamma and another …Petitioners (W.P.No.20535 of 2008) And The General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad and others …Respondents (W.P.No.20535 of 2008) Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy (W.P.No.20535 of 2008) Counsel for respondents: Sri P.Bhaskar (W.P.No.20535 of 2008) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, these writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are in occupation of their respective premises, which allegedly belong to the South Central Railways. They have filed these writ petitions feeling aggrieved by the separate, but identical communications, dated 13.09.2008, issued by respondent No.2, wherein it is stated that a Form-B order was served by the Estate Officer on 24.12.2001, and that as the petitioners failed to vacate the premises, they were asked to vacate the premises and report compliance by 19.09.2008. At the hearing, Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the purported Form-B orders for eviction of the petitioners were never served on them and that the same was made known to respondent No.2 through legal notice, dated 15.09.2008. In the counter affidavits filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia averred that as far back as 03.03.1998, respondent No.3 has passed an order of eviction and that the notices, dated 13.09.2008, are only in the nature of reminders. An objection has therefore been raised in the counter affidavits that the petitioners without questioning the order, dated 03.03.1998, cannot maintain these writ petitions. In support of their plea that the eviction orders were passed on 03.03.1998, the respondents have filed the copies thereof showing the purported endorsement evidencing receipt of the orders. Assuming that those orders were served on the petitioners, the respondents cannot sleep over the issue for nearly ten years and suddenly wake up by insisting on the petitioners to vacate the premises. If Form-B orders were served on the petitioners or their predecessors in occupation, there could be no justification for the respondents to keep quiet for more than ten years. In the wake of the stand taken by the petitioners that Form-B orders were not served on them and having regard to lack of diligence with which the respondents have pursued the issue of eviction, I am of the opinion that it would be in the interests of justice that the petitioners are given one more opportunity to put forth their case. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to issue fresh notices to the petitioners calling upon them to show-cause as to why they shall not be evicted. Within two weeks from the date of receipt of such notices, the petitioners shall submit their objections. Upon considering the objections, if any, that may be submitted by the petitioners, respondent No.2 shall pass a fresh order under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Till this process is completed, the petitioners shall not be evicted from the premises in their respective occupation. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions, interlocutory applications, if any pending in these writ petitions, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th July, 2011 VGB