IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 14043 of 2009 Between: N.Vishwanath S/o Narsimhalu 1-30-127,New Bownepally Secunderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Registrar(Management) High Court Building at Hyderabad 2 The Chief Judge City Civil Court Puranihaveli at Hyderabad 3 The 1st Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court Marredpally at Secunderabad .....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 writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and a) by declaring the action of the respondents in asking the petitioner to remove his respective Xerox shed stall space in Secunderabad Court premises at Marredpally, Secunderabad as illegal and unconstitutional b) to direct the respondents not to demolish remove the existing Xerox Shed and stall of petitioner lying in Secunderabad Court premises at Marredpally, Secunderabad till the disposal of the petitioner's representations dated 22-12-2008 and 9-1-2009 as per law c) To direct the respondent No 1 to consider the petitioner's representations dated 22-12-2008 and 9-1-2009 and to dispose of the same as per law and d) to pass orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.WASIM AHMED KHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: G.VIDYASAGAR (SC FOR APHC) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14043 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Swaroop Reddy) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in directing to remove his Xerox booth in the Secunderabad Court premises, Maredpally, Secunderabad, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the first respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representations dated 22.12.2008 and 09.01.2009. The petitioner states that he is running a Xerox machine along with Computer Job Typists, Stamp Vendors, Notaries, Law Books Vendor etc. in Secunderabad Court premises, that they were granted valid permit on ground rent of Rs.3,000/- p.a. and that licences of his stall and other stall holders were not renewed after 31.12.2007 in view of the circular dated 18.06.2007 issued by the first respondent-Registrar (Management), High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Challenging the same, the petitioner along with others filed W.P.No.1316 of 2008, which was dismissed, against which, W.A.No.254 of 2008 was filed. Petitioner states that pending the writ appeal, the first respondent-Registrar (Management) issued another circular dated 23.04.2008 for running one canteen and one Xerox machine and no provision was made with regard to allotment of space to the Job Typists and others. Subsequently, when the matter was brought before the High Court on judicial side, the High Court permitted them to file a fresh representation and the same was filed by the Job Typists and others on 07.05.2008. The first respondent-Registrar (Management) issued another circular dated 08.08.2008 in ROC.No.499/06-D-II(B) in respect of running one canteen and one Xerox machine only in the Court premises. By order dated 15.10.2008, this Court dismissed the writ appeal permitting the parties to submit a representation before the respondents. Petitioner states that he submitted representations dated 22.02.2008 and 09.01.2009 to the third respondent requesting to issue necessary orders for running a Xerox machine, which is pending with the third respondent. Hence the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the circular dated 08.08.2008 contending that in view of the aforesaid circular, the petitioner is entitled to run a Xerox machine and that the third respondent has not passed any orders on the representations filed by him. A reading of the circular dated 08.08.2008 in ROC.No.499/06-D-II(B) issued by the first respondent-Registrar (Management), in supersession to the earlier circulars, shows that the Bar Association was permitted to run one canteen and one Xerox machine in the Secunderabd Court premises on payment of nominal rent fixed by the Unit Heads. However, the circular does not provide for running a Xerox machine by the individuals. Individuals, no doubt, are permitted to do job typing depending on the requirements. As the request of the petitioner for running the Xerox machine is not covered under the above circular except by the Bar Association, there are absolutely no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. V.ESWARAIAH,J P.SWAROOP REDDY,J Dt:15.07.2009 usd