IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5675 of 2007 Between: Devarapu Satyavathi W/o.Satyanarayana R/o.Killadavari street, Kothapeta, Tuni, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tuni, East Godavari District. 3 The Tuni Municipality, rep. by its Chair Person, Tuni, East Godavari District. 4 Korokonda Rambabu S/o.Sambamurthy R/o.S.Annavaram, Tuni, East Godavari 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 issue a writ, order or direction particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 herein in granting alleged permission to the 4th respondent herein to start a petrol bunk contrary to the rules as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently, direct the 1st respondent herein to cancel the permission, if any, granted to the 4th respondent herein to start the petrol bunk situated at H.No.5-13-1, M.S. Road, Opp: Market Yard, Tuni, East Godavari District and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.SUBRAHMANYA NARUSU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5675 of 2007 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction by way of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in granting permission to 4th respondent to start a petrol bunk in the premises bearing H.No.5-13-1, M.S.Road, Opp. Market Yard, Tuni, East Godavari District. Petitioner claims title over the property in question but in the affidavit, no particulars of such permission which is granted to the 4th respondent which is being challenged in the writ petition are furnished. A copy of the permission which is granted to 4th respondent is also not filed so as to examine its validity. In view of the vague allegations and in the absence of filing of copy of permission granted to the 4th respondent to start a petrol bunk, it is not possible for this Court to examine the validity of such permission. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ------------------------------ R. SUBHASH REDDY. J APRIL 30, 2009 Tsr/Gk