THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.5661 OF 2010 Dated 9th April, 2010 Between: Sri Alapati Venu …Petitioner And 1.The Managing Director, APSRTC and 2 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Bethi Venkateswarlu Counsel for the respondents : Mr.P.Krishna Reddy for Mr.Sridhar Reddy Pottigari, SC for APSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3, in demanding and threatening the petitioner to shift the Ice-Cream & Dairy Products Stall from the existing place to some other place in Sathupally Bus Station, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Bethi Venkateswarlu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel representing Sri Sridhar Reddy Pottigari, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. The petitioner was successful tenderer for grant of licence to run Ice-Cream & Dairy Products business in a space admeasuring 10 feet x 10 feet by erecting his own stall. According to the petitioner, after the erection of stall, when he started selling the said products, the respondents have objected to such erection and insisted on shifting the stall to a different place from the site, which was allotted to him. In response to the notice, a counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 wherein the Officer of respondent No.1-Corporation inter alia stated that after the petitioner’s offer was accepted, the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Khammam, issued letter, dated 31-12-2009, advising the former to utilise open space admeasuring 10 feet x 10 feet shown to the petitioner and that a deed of licence was executed on 04-01-2010 for the period from 07-01-2010 to 06-01-2016. He further stated that the petitioner has erected the shop by moving 2 ½ feet forward and thereby, encroaching into a common passage meant for passengers’ movement. It is also stated that the erection of the stall has taken place within a day and the same went unnoticed. In support of the said averment, the respondents filed rough sketch along with a photograph. From a perusal of the photograph and the rough sketch, the authenticity of which is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner has protruded beyond the alignment of the structure on which it is written as ‘ladies toilet’. The rough sketch filed by the respondents also demonstrates this fact. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that while erecting the stall, no one has objected to the same and that the petitioner having spent substantial amount in erecting the stall, the respondents cannot be permitted to raise such an objection at this stage. I do not find any merit in this submission. The petitioner is entitled to erect the stall at the place allotted to him in pursuance of the licence granted to him. The averments contained in the counter-affidavit that the stall was raised within a day’s time has not been denied. If the subordinates of the respondents have not noticed the erection of the stall, the respondents are not estopped from asking the petitioner to shift the stall to the place, which is actually allotted by moving the stall backwards by about 2 ½ feet. The petitioner evidently tried to project his stall forward by occupying the space meant for movement of passengers. The respondents cannot, therefore, be said to have committed any illegality in insisting on the petitioner to move the stall to the designated place. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any reason to grant relief to the petitioner and the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.7279 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 9th April, 2010 lur