IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 3388 of 2005 Between: E.Raja Goal S/o.G.Vijaya rama Rao R/o.Jagaiahpeta Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Krishna at Machilipatnam. 2 Jaggaiahpeta Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Jaggaiahpeta, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in restricting choice and the beneficiaries vide resolution dt.21.12.2004 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to law without the authority of law and has the effect of violating the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14,16,19 and 21 of the constitution of India and issue consequential directions to consider the case of the petitioner to allot the shop by extending the benefits an extended to others in resolution dt.21.12.2004 and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.S.ANAND Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner questions the resolution-dated 21.12.2004 passed by the respondents resolving to provide rehabilitation to the extent possible by allotting seven shops in the remaining area, as illegal and arbitrary on the ground that the second respondent has no power or authority to pass any resolution. It is stated that the matter was placed before the council on 21.12.2004 and the council in its resolution No.330 resolved to provide rehabilitation to the extent possible by allotting seven shops. The second respondent only acted upon the resolution of the council to implement the decision taken by the council and therefore, the said action of the second respondent is not illegal and arbitrary. However, I am of the opinion that this court while issuing notice before admission directed the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation dated 22.12.2004 made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, no further orders are required to be passed in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the said interim order, dated 25.02.2005. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:10.03.2008 Ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MPL}