THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.32754 of 2010 Date: 27.12.2010 Between : M/s. Premier Metachem (P) Limited, Bangalore. … Petitioner and The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, rep.by its Zonal Manager, Holding its office at Industrial Park, Renigunta Road, Settipalli Post, Tirupati-517506 and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.32754 of 2010 ORDER : This writ petition is misconceived for the reason that substantially the relief sought for in the writ petition is in the nature of injunction against the 3rd respondent, a private party. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition pleading that the 1st respondent-A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited has allotted the land admeasuring about 76893 square meters vide their letter No.297/ZO/TPT/IP/GMD/2008/991, dated 9.7.2008, on payment of a valid sale consideration of Rs.1,53,78,600/-. However, the 1st respondent did not execute the agreement of sale even after receipt of the entire sale consideration. The petitioner, having waited for a considerable time, apprehending that the 1st respondent would cancel the allotment of the said land, filed W.P.No.3943 of 2010 seeking a direction to the respondents therein to execute the agreement of sale and deliver possession of the land allotted to the petitioner. This Court, on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the General Manager (Law) of the 1st respondent Corporation to the effect that the petitioner violated condition No.2 of the allotment order by defaulting to adhere to the payment schedule and consequent on the default committed by the petitioner, the allotment was cancelled by proceedings No.297/20/TPT/IPGMD/2008/ 1572, dated 16.12.2009, dismissed the said writ petition by order dated 30.3.2010, with liberty to the petitioner to question the order of cancellation. 3. It appears that after dismissal of W.P.No.3943 of 2010, the petitioner has invoked the common law remedy by filing a suit O.S.No.59 of 2010 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, to declare the said order of cancellation dated 16.12.2009, as arbitrary, illegal and also sought for an injunction not to execute any agreement of sale or sale deed in favour of any other party. The petitioner also filed interlocutory application I.A.No.88 of 2010 for temporary injunction to restrain execution of any agreement of sale or creation of any third party interest in respect of the subject land. Counters have been filed by the respondents concerned in the said interlocutory application and the same is pending for consideration before the Court below. Further, consequent on the cancellation of allotment, the subject land was allotted in favour of the 3rd respondent and others. It is at that stage, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. The grievance pleaded by the petitioner in this writ petition is that while the I.A.No.88 of 2010 for temporary injunction and the suit are pending, respondent No.3 is preparing to take up construction over plot No.83 of the subject land without any right to take up such construction activity. The said grievance is sought to be made on the only ground that Advocates are not attending the Courts on account of the agitation undertaken by them seeking establishment of a Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court for Rayalaseema Region. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the strike is still continuing, which has disabled the petitioner to approach the civil Court for redressal of its grievance. 6. The premise to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that the Advocates are abstaining from attending the civil Court cannot be countenanced. Time and again, the Apex Court and this Court as well have emphasized that the Advocates cannot resort to abstaining from the Courts. The Courts have also expressed that such abstention would prejudicially affect the interest of the litigant public. The instant case is a classic example where the parties are disabled from working out their legal remedies on account of the Advocates going on strike. The reason assigned by the petitioner might be a valid grievance against the Advocates, but, certainly, not against the Courts. The petitioner could have pursued its remedy in the suit before the civil Court instead of filing this writ petition. Further more, the relief sought in this writ petition, in fact, is against the 3rd respondent against whom no writ can be issued. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 27.12.2010 Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.32754 of 2010 27.12.2010 Msr