IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 21073 of 1999 Between: Tadaka Mallaiah. S/o.T.Narsaiah, R/o.Godavarikhani, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Singareni Colleries Co.Ltd ., Rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director , Kothagudem, Khamman District. 2 Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., Rep.by its General Manager , Ramagundam Areas-I ,Godavarikhani , Karimnagar 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 to call for the records from the respondetns and issue and appropriate Wri, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of 2nd Respondent in proceeding NO.P.RC.I/10-3/4159, dated 21/25-8-1996, in trying the evict the Petitioner from Quater No.D-396 at Godavarikhani as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, discriminatory amounts to an act of vicitimisation, unfair labour practice and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and grant all consequential benefits; and pass such other or further order or orders, as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.21073 OF 1999 O R D E R This writ petition is filed by a General Mazdoor of Singareni Collieries Company Limited challenging its action vide Proceedings No.P.RG.I/10.3/4159 dated 21/25.08.1996 in trying to evict him from Quarter No.D-396 at Godavarikhani on the ground that the same is illegal being contrary to the settlement arrived at between the Management of the Company and the Workers’ Union. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Sri E.V.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the Company, stated on the basis of the fax message in Ref.No.RG.I/PER/C/54/4975, dated 27.08.2008 that the petitioner had vacated and handed over the physical possession of the subject quarter to the concerned authorities on 11.09.2005. Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the petitioner had been subjected to forcible eviction in spite of the interim orders passed by this Court directing the company not to evict him from the subject Quarter without following the due process of law. Notwithstanding the dispute as to how the petitioner lost his possession over the subject Quarter and whether the same was lawful or otherwise, the fact remains that the petitioner is no longer in possession of the subject Quarter. The prayer in the writ petition, being limited to the proposed eviction of the petitioner from the said Quarter, has worked itself out owing to the above development. As regards the legality of the vacating of the subject Quarter by the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to invoke such remedies as are available to him in law with regard to his alleged forcible and unlawful eviction from the subject Quarter. Such disputed issues founded on fact cannot be resolved in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. As stated earlier, the limited issue raised in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 30th JULY, 2009 PGS / VGSR