IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 21995 of 2008 Between: M/s. Himadri Chemicals & Industries Ltd. Rep. by Amin Ahemed Plot No.67 to 69, A.P.I.E., Pedagnatyada, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND The A.P. State Financial Corporation Rep. by the Branch Manager, Vskptnm. 5-9-194, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad. 52-14-77, New Resapuvaniapalyam, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent in forcibly dispossessing the Writ Petitioner pursuant to Proceedings in Ref.No.AFC / VSP/ Legal / SVA / 2008-09 / 1516, dated 11-06- 2008 read with Proceedings in Ref.No.AFC / VSP/ HRD / BS / 2008-09 / 3546, dated 19-09-2008 without reference to process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondent not to dispossess the Writ Petitioner except in accordance with law. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.V.BHATT Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.21995 OF 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the respondents/A.P. State Financial Corporation in forcibly dispossessing the writ petitioner from premises bearing No.52-14-77/1, Resapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam pursuant to the notice dated 11.6.2008 and 19.9.2008 is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. Various contentions have been raised by the petitioner assailing the impugned action of the respondent and the learned Counsel for the petitioner while relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF U.P. v. DHARMANDER PRASAD SINGH[1] vehemently contended that the respondent Corporation cannot be allowed to resume possession extrajudicially by use of force. Admittedly, the petitioner was put in possession of the premises in question under a deed of lease executed between the parties and the period of lease expired long back. The correctness of the mutual agreement between the parties after the expiry of lease and the right of the petitioner to continue in possession, which involved consideration of questions of fact and rights of the parties arising out of the lease deed cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction and the dispute if any arising out of such lease deed should be adjudicated only by working out the common law remedy. So far as the resumption of possession of the premises in question forcibly is concerned, except a vague statement in the aﬃdavit nothing could be placed before this Court to substantiate the apprehension of the alleged forcible dispossession. The two letters addressed by the respondent dated 11.6.2008 and 19.9.2008 on the basis of which the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus did not reﬂect any such coercive steps, but the petitioner was only requested to vacate the premises as the Head Oﬃce decided to demolish the existing building and construct a multi- storeyed complex. Thus, the alleged forcible dispossession appears to be only the apprehension of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be maintained. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy as available under law before the proper forum in case necessity thereof arises. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 30.09.2008 pnv [1] AIR 1989 SC 997