IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20533 of 2008 Between: C.K.Srinivas S/o.Late Dr.C.K.Rao Krishna X Ray Clinic,H.No.5-8-655, Namaplly Station Road, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad 2 The Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally, Hyderabad 3 The Mandal Revenue officer, Nampally Mandal Hyderabad 4 The Hyderabad Co-operative Central Trading Society Ltd., office at 3-6-363,Liberty Tri Junction,104/B,1st floor Himayathnagar Road,Basheerbagh,Hyderabad,rep.by its General Manager Sri E.Yadagiri,S/o.Mallaiah aged about 59 years .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 and 3 not to grant/sanction any building permission in favour of the respondent No.4 society or their Assignees or agents etc., and also to direct the respondent No.2 not to grant NOC in favour of Respondent No.4 society or their assignees or Agents etc., in respect of premises bearing No.5.8.655,Nampally STation Road,Hyderabad and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.GOVIND REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Sri C.K. Srinivas with a prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 3 not to grant/sanction any building permission in favour of respondent No.4-Society or their assignees or agents, etc. and also to direct respondent No.2 not to grant NOC in favour of respondent No.4-Society. The petitioner claims to be a tenant in premises bearing No.5-8-655, situated at Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad, owned by the forth respondent. The fourth respondent ﬁled R.C.C.No.163 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad seeking eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner ﬁled O.S.No.2923 of 2008 seeking perpetual injunction against the respondent. He also moved I.A.No.1516 of 2008 on the ﬁle of III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained ad-interim Injunction. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent-owner is trying to obtain building permission from the M.C.H. authorities and therefore he approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for the ﬁrst respondent. Indisputably, the petitioner is a tenant of the premises owned by the fourth respondent-society. Two proceedings have been pending in the civil Court, one is the Rent Control Case ﬁled by the fourth respondent-society seeking eviction of the petitioner and the other is the Civil Suit ﬁled by the petitioner against the fourth respondent-Society for perpetual injunction. The fourth respondent, who is the owner of the premises, intends to put up constructions for which he seems to have been made an application before the District Collector and other authorities. The petitioner claims that he has to put on notice before considering the application ﬁled by the fourth respondent for building permission sanction and No Objection Certificate. Writ of Mandamus is a pre-emptory order of the Court commanding somebody to do that while he is under a clear legal duty to do. In order to obtain a writ or order in the nature of Mandamus, the applicant must satisfy the following conditions. 1. The applicant must show that he has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty (as distinguished from the discretion) by the party against whom the Mandamus is sought and such right must be satisfying on the date of petition. 2. The duty that may be enjoyed by Mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution, Statute, and Common law or by Rules or Orders having the force of law. The petitioner is a tenant of the premises owned by the fourth respondent-Society. In the building permission application ﬁled by the fourth respondent, there is no obligation on the part of the authorities to serve notice on the petitioner who claims to be the tenant of the premises. Therefore, invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, is misconceived. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. _________________________ (B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.) 19th September, 2008 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad 2 The Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally, Hyderabad 3 The Mandal Revenue officer, Nampally Mandal Hyderabad 4 The Hyderabad Co-operative Central Trading Society Ltd., office at 3-6-363,Liberty Tri Junction,104/B,1st floor Himayathnagar Road,Basheerbagh,Hyderabad,rep.by its General Manager Sri E.Yadagiri,S/o.Mallaiah aged about 59 years 5 2 CD copies.