IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23254 of 2008 Between: Smt.S.Nagaveni W/o.S.Ranganayakulu R/o.8-2-293/PL/190, Road No.78, Film Nagar, Ambedkarnagar, Hyderabad (A.P.) ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Special Officer-cum-Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad of Municipal Corporation, Near Tank Bund, Hyderabad (A.P.) 2 Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad of Municipal Corporation, Cricle No.5 M.C.H. Office, Khairatabad, Hyderabad (A.P.) .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction or writ more appropriately a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents herein to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 18.10.2008, which was made through her husband S.Ranganayakulu for continuing her Public Telephone Booth at the same present premises by issuing necessary license as per existing Rules or else not to demolish the Petitioner's Public Telephone Booth without due process of Law and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.RAJANNA Counsel for the Respondents: (SC FOR MCH CIRCLES 3&5)KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Smt.S.Nagaveni assailing the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in removing her public telephone booth, which came to be erected by her after obtaining necessary licence. 2. The petitioner claims to have taken permission from the then Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad in the year 1998 and established a small public telephone booth at Ambedkar Nagar, Film Nagar, Hyderabad. The petitioner was also issued demand notice for payment of property tax for the year 1999-2000. She secured necessary ‘no objection certiﬁcate’ from the Traﬃc Police for continuing her public telephone booth in the said premises. Whileso, the respondents started removing her public telephone booth at the instance of A.P.Film Development Corporation. Her husband-S.Ranganayakulu submitted a representation to the Respondents on 18.10.2008. The said representation remained unattended. Hence, this writ petition. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, Smt.Kalpana Ekbote, learned Standing Counsel of GHMC, takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 Corporation. The learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submits that the public telephone booth of the petitioner is already removed and therefore, the cause of action in this writ petition does not survive. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.10.2008 to the respondents for continuance of the public telephone booth of the petitioner and the same is pending. 5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 18.10.2008 submitted by the husband of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:24th October, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}