IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 1197 of 2000 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 08/09/2000 in WP NO : 4399 OF 1998 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Ayesha Begum W/o Late Syed Moulana R/o H.No.20-4-972/13, Iqbal Ramzilchouk, Hyderabad 2 Syed Faheem S/o Late Syed Moulana H.No.20-4-973/13, Iqbal Ramzilchouk, Hyderabad ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Commissioner / Special Officer Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad 2 The Station House Officer Charminar P.S. Charminar, Hyderabad 3 The Asst. Commissioner of Police (Traffic) Charminar, Hyderabad 4 Jai Bhagwan S/o Phool Chand R/o 21-7-598, Kokanwadi, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.C.V.MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.G.RAMA RAO The Division Bench of this Court made the following oral judgment: THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN. * * * WRIT APPEAL No. 1197 OF 2000. ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned single Judge in WP.No.4399 of 1998, dated 08-9-2000, the present writ appeal is filed. 2. In the aforesaid writ petition, the appellants herein had sought a mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess them from carrying on business of running a small shop, covering an area of 5 x 5 sq.yards in front of Maheswar Jewellers at 21-2-71, Machili Kaman, Hyderabad, without due process of law. 3. The learned single Judge relied on the earlier judgment in WP.No.9300 of 1998, dated 12-10-1998, wherein this Court had held that the petitioners had no right to continue the business in foot paths and they were not entitled for any relief. 4. Sri S. Srinivas Reddy, Learned counsel representing Sri C.V.Suryanarayana, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant alone has been singled out for adverse treatment while several such shops both on the right side of the road are continuing and carrying on their business. The learned counsel would draw attention of the orders of the Division Bench in WA.No. 22 of 2000 dated 02-2-2000. In the said appeal, which arose out of an interlocutory application based in the very same writ petition, the Division Bench appointed an Advocate-Commissioner, who, in his report recorded that the vacant space was 5 x 5 sq.yards, where the authorities had restrained the appellant from carryuing on his business and that the disputed site did not cause any hindrance to the pedestrians or to any other person. According to Sri S. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel, as several other shops were continuing their business operations, the respondent authorities, in taking action against the appellant alone, had violated the appellant’s fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and had discriminated against him. 5. This Court would not issue mandamus as sought for by the appellants herein, since admittedly they are carrying on business on foot paths, which are meant for the convenience of the pedestrians. We consider it appropriate therefore to permit the appellant to submit a detailed representation to the first respondent within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order raising all such pleas as are available to them in law including the plea of discrimination and the first respondent shall, within two months thereafter, pass necessary orders thereupon in accordance with laws. Needless to state that since the Divison Bench, in its order in WA.No.22 of 2000 dated 02-2-2000 had directed statusquo ante as it existed on 20-4-1999 to be maintained, such orders shall remain in force till the representation filed by the appellant is disposed of by the first respondent. It is made clear that in case the appellants do not submit the representation within the aforesaid stipulated time, it is open to the first respondent to take action in accordance with law. 6. The writ appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. ____________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J. _________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 09-7-2008 I s L ........REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER. To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA { }