THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.18266 OF 2011 Dated: 30.06.2011 Between: Moole Venkateswara Reddy … Petitioner AND The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation and others … Respondents This Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.18266 OF 2011 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the notice dated 20.06.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent- Estate Officer, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijawada in directing the petitioner to vacate shop No.217 situated in New K.G.Market, Vijayawada, is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. G.Jhansi, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. It is apparent from the material available on record that the impugned notice was issued in terms of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.25684 of 2006 filed by the 3rd respondent herein. It is not disputed before this Court that the shop in question was leased out to the 3rd respondent by the Corporation. The petitioner herein claims to have purchased the lease hold rights from the 3rd respondent. Alleging that the 3rd respondent failed to fulfil the agreement of transfer of lease hold rights, the petitioner filed O.S.No.389 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada seeking a decree for specific performance. Admittedly, the said suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 16.11.2006. It is also clear that Writ Petition No.25684 of 2006 filed by the 3rd respondent was disposed of by this Court permitting the petitioner therein/3rd respondent herein to file a representation within a period of two weeks and thereafter, the Corporation shall consider the same and take necessary steps for delivery and possession of the shop to him within a period of three months. Pursuant thereto, the 3rd respondent appears to have made a representation on 21.02.2011 and having considered the same, the Corporation issued the impugned notice calling upon the writ petitioner to vacate the shop in question. Having regard to the admitted fact that the suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner against the 3rd respondent was dismissed and the said judgment and decree attained finality and moreover, the writ petitioner being a party to Writ Petition No.25684 of 2006 is bound by the order dated 02.02.2011 passed by this Court, it is not open to him to raise any objection at this stage to handover the vacant possession of the shop in question. However, the only objection of the petitioner appears to be that since certain amounts are due to him towards the sale transaction, which was the subject matter of O.S.No.389 of 2004, the shop in question cannot be handover to the 3rd respondent unless and until the said amounts are refunded to him. Even assuming that any such amounts are due, it is for the petitioner to take appropriate steps for recovery of the same from the 3rd respondent. It is also open to him to make an appropriate representation to the 1st respondent for redressal of his grievance. However, on that ground he cannot raise any objection for handing over the possession of the shop in question. Hence, the interference by this Court is not warranted. Accordingly, leaving it open to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation before the 1st respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________ G.ROHINI, J JUNE 30, 2011 Ivd