IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.15355 of 2000 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....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 Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SUBRAHMANYAM KURELLA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ } THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.15355 of 2000 ORDER: Heard both the counsel. The petitioners seek to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess them while declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess them from their respective houses shown in Annexure-A without issuing any notice and also without following due process of law, is contrary and is opposed to the principles of natural justice. It is stated that the petitioners are residing in the slums, which have been given municipal numbers as shown in the cause title of the writ petition, called as Harijanawada in Sy.Nos.11 & 99 of Govindarajulugutta, Warangal. It is further stated that the petitioners belong to schedule caste “Madiga community” and they are residing in the said slums from 1952 by constructing houses therein, the municipal authorities have also recognized their right of stay at the said slum, and the Government issued ration cards and they were also enrolled in the voters list. The main grievance of the petitioners is against the Warangal Municipal Corporation and its Corporator, who are respondent Nos.1 and 3, against whom the Writ Petition was already dismissed for default, as per the Court order dated 22.09.2004, and the writ petition survives only against the 2nd respondent who is the District Collector, Warangal. But admittedly, no allegation is made against the 2nd respondent herein. Having regard to the fact that the writ petition has already dismissed against respondent Nos.1 and 3, against whom the petitioners have grievance, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed against the 2nd respondent also. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, if there is any fresh action proposed to be taken by the respondents for dispossession of the petitioners, it is open for the petitioners to avail the remedies available under law. No order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 03.04.2008 Dsr .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 2. 2CCs to 3. 2CD copies