IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5340 of 2008 Between: M/s Sri Veerabhadra &Co Shop No.B35, Agricultural Market Bowenapally Rep.by Smt K.Rajamani W/o.Late Sri K.R Mallesh R/o.H.No.6-6-405/B/9, Gandhinagar Praga Tools Back Side Sec-Bad-500080 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner and Director of Marketing Govt.of A.P BRKR Buildings Tank Bund Road Hyd 2 The Agricultural Market Committee Rep.by its Selection Grade Secretary Bowenapally, Sec-Bad ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. SREEDHAR FOR MR.V.HARI HARAN Counsel for Respondent No.1: None appeared Counsel for Respondent No.2: MR.V.V.NARAYANA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the inaction of respondent No.2 in registering shop bearing No.B-35 situated at Agricultural Market Committee, Bowenpally, Tirumalgherry Mandal, Secunderabad in terms of sale agreement, dated 20.02.2003 as illegal. In her affidavit, Smt. K.Rajamani, representing the petitioner company submitted that her late husband was an allottee of a shop in Monda Market, Secunderabad; that in the year 2002, when the market was shifted to Bowenpally, he was allotted shop No.B-35 in the Market Yard in Bowenpally by respondent No.2 and that when she was conducting business in that shop, one Sri P.Krishna raised a dispute. She further averred that when the said Krishna sought to interfere with her possession, she and her sons filed O.S.No.1095 of 2003 on the file of XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and got injunction in their favour. The said injunction order was set aside at the instance of the said P.Krishna in CMA.No.15 of 2004 and the appellate Court, which passed the said order directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit within three (3) months. She further stated that the said P.Krishna approached respondent No.1 with a revision petition and after hearing both sides, he passed order on 17.12.2005 to agitate the matter before appropriate forum after conclusion of the civil proceedings pending before XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The petitioner’s grievance is that the said P.Krishna is trying to meddle with the property and the respondents are not taking steps to allot shop No.B-35 in pursuance of the agreement of sale. I have heard Sri Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.V.Narayana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. On the petitioner’s own showing, there is a serious dispute with respect to the right of the parties for allotment of the shop in question between the petitioner and the said P.Krishna. The petitioner failed to make the said person as a party to this writ petition, and she has not explained the reasons for the same. It is a fundamental principle of law that no order can be passed, which is likely to affect the interests of a person without hearing him. Therefore, the writ petition as it is conceived without making the said P.Krishna as a party, is not maintainable and as such, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Even on merits, I am not convinced that the petitioner made out any case for granting the relief sought for by her in this writ petition. Though the petitioner did not disclose that she had earlier filed a writ petition, order, dated 17.12.2005 passed by respondent No.1 shows that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.10889 of 2005, which was disposed of by this Court with the direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of the petitioner’s representation for allotment of shop No.B-35 after hearing the rival claims. In pursuance of the said directions, respondent No.1 passed order on 17.12.2005, wherein he took note of the rival claims of the petitioner and the said P.Krishna and permitted the parties to agitate before appropriate forum after disposal of the pending suit. The petitioner has not questioned the said order passed by respondent No.1. The record shows that the suit filed by the petitioner and her sons, was dismissed as not pressed on 28.02.2006. Having got the suit dismissed as not pressed, the petitioner is not in a better position than what she was on 17.12.2005 when the revision petition filed by the said Krishna was dismissed by respondent No.1. If at all she is worse off having got the suit dismissed. The petitioner is only claiming her right through an agreement of sale, which per se does not confer any right on her unless she seeks proper execution of sale deed in pursuance of such an agreement of sale by approaching the competent Court of jurisdiction. The petitioner has not explained why she has not taken recourse to such a remedy. In the face of the rival claims between her and the said P.Krishna, it is not possible for the respondents to take a decision in favour of the petitioner on the mere agreement of sale without the petitioner getting her right legally adjudicated by the Court of competent jurisdiction. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.6938 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th MARCH, 2008 kvni