IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16878 of 2008 Between: C. Ramulu S/o. Late Smt. Balamma R/o. H.No. 5-5-979/A, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Hyderabad , Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner, Circle-9 .....RESPONDENT 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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Manamus declaring the action of the respondent i.e, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by Deputy Commissioner, Circle-9 in not complying with the proceedings issued in Memo NO. 2695/EO/MCA/J3./97-98/943 dt. 27-12-1997 by allotting a new shop No. 11 in the new Complex constructed iln Lingampally Municipal Market to the petitioner as bad illegal, arbitrary and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been ﬁled by C.Ramulu with a prayer to issue writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation-2nd respondent in not complying with the proceedings issued vide Memo No.2695/EO/MCA/J3/97-98/943, dated 27.12.1997, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner is the son of one Balamma. The said Balamma was running a vegetable business in Stall No.11 in Lingampally Municipal Market. She died on 15.11.1991. After her death, the petitioner continued the business in Stall No.11. Lingampalli Municipal Market came to be aﬀected in road widening. Hyderabad Municipal Corporation took a decision to construct a new market complex. Proceedings were issued informing Balamma that temporary accommodation would be given to her for vending vegetables as and when new complex comes up, she would be accommodated there subject to fulﬁllment of usual allotment conditions. The petitioner handed over Stall No.11 to the Corporation. After the new complex came up, the petitioner made a representation for allotment of shop. The Corporation informed him that his case for allotment of shop would be considered after ﬁnalization of Court Cases vide Lr.No.2695/Est.6/EO/MCH/2003 246, dated 9/22-4-2003. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Standing counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation received notice on behalf of the respondent. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being the son of Balamma, is entitled for an alternative accommodation, which is being provided by the respondent-Corporation to similarly situated persons. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation stated that the representation of the petitioner has not been considered in view of the pendency of court cases. In reply to the contention of the learned standing counsel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no case is pending as on this day and there is no impediment for the respondent-Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation to the respondent- Corporation informing that the cases pending in court have been ﬁnalized. Thereupon, the respondent shall consider the representation within a period of four weeks therefrom, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with the provisions of law. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. __________ 05-08-2008 Note: Issue CC by three days. (B.O) rkk