IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 4567 of 2008 Between: 1 N. Surya Prakash, s/o. Viswanatha Setty, R/o.Rayadurg Town, Anantapur District. 2 P. Venkat Reddy, S/o. Veerabhadra Reddy, R/o. Rayadurg Town, Anantapur District. 3 S.Ibrahim S/o.Manusab, R/o.Rayadurg Town Anantapur Dist ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Commissioner Endowments Department of A.P. Boggulakunta, Abids, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ananthapur District. 3 Sri Rani Choultry, Rayadurg (V) &(M) Anantapur District, rep.by its Executive Officer 4 The Circle Inspector Rayadurg Police Station, Anantapur 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the Respondents 3 and 4 in trying to evict the petitioners from the shops bearing Door Nos. 9-1-15/11 and 9-1-15/12 of Rayadurg Town, Ananthapur District belonging to the 3rd respondent choultry, though the lease is subsisting till 30-4-2008, where the petitioners are eking their livelihood by running petty business in the respective shops allotted in public auction by following due process of law, as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, contrary to the provisions of lease rules issued in GO Ms.No. 866, Revenue (Endowments I) department, dated 08-8-2003, discriminatory and offending Article 14 and 21 of constitution of India and consequentially to direct the respondents 3 and 4 not to evict the petitioners from the said shops till the lease is expired. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENUGOPALA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in trying to evict the petitioners from the shops bearing Door Nos.9-1-15/11 and 9-1-15/12 belonging to the 3rd respondent-Choultry in Rayadurg Town, Ananthapour District, though the period of lease is subsisting till 30.4.2008, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners assert that in a public auction conducted on 11.4.2005 for leasing out about 15 small shops belonging to the 3rd respondent, they were declared as highest bidders, and as per the Lease Approval Proceedings dated 17.5.2005, the Mulgis (shops) in question were leased out in their favour for a period of three years i.e. from 1.5.2005 to 30.4.2008. Now, the petitioners’ grievance is that though they have been carrying on business in the shops in accordance with law, the 4th respondent-Circle Inspector, without any authority whatsoever, is trying to interfere with their peaceful possession of the shops and business and threatening that he would demolish the Mulgis so that there will be parking spare for the vehicles in that area. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. From a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and other material placed on record, it is clear that the petitioners are the auction purchasers, and accordingly, the proceedings dated 17.5.2005 with regard to confirmation of lease agreement for a period of three years i.e. up to 30.4.2008 were issued. When the petitioners are the highest bidders and put in possession of the Mulgis in accordance with law, the 4th respondent has no right whatsoever to threaten them saying that the place, where the shops in question are situated, is required for parking purpose. Further, apparently, the area belongs to the 3rd respondent- Choultry within the meaning of the word “Endowment” as defined under the provisions of the Endowments Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs the 4th respondent-Circle Inspector not to interfere with the petitioners’ peaceful possession of the shops and their business, without following due process of law. The 3rd respondent produced a letter, dated 14.1.2008 addressed to the 2nd respondent wherein it is clearly stated that the 4th respondent is behaving in a highhanded manner. In the light of the report furnished by the 3rd respondent-Choultry, the 2nd respondent- Asst. Commissioner, Endowments Department, is hereby directed to hold an enquiry into the allegation made by the petitioners as well as the 3rd respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In terms of the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ 11.03.2008 Note: Furnish copy by tomorrow B/o bcj