IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1620 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22-10-2008 in WP No.22982 of 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M/s.Lutheran Laity Movement (Reg.No.80/1999), Guntur, reptd., by its Vice-President G.I.Dayardhana Rao, S/o.Gurindapalli David, 63 yrs, r/o.MIG 60, APHB Colony, Guntur City and District and another. ..... Appellants And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad and five others. .....Respondents. Counsel for the Appellants: Sri B.Narayana Reddy. Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Municipal Administration for R.1. Sri G.Venkata Ratnam for R2 & R3. The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per T.Meena Kumari,J) This Writ Appeal is directed against order dated 22-10-2008 in Writ Petition No.22982 of 2008, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants herein questioning the inaction of respondents 1 to 3 in disposing of their representations dated 7-10-2008 and 10-10-2008. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The grievance of the appellants herein, as averred in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, is that they are interested in protecting the property of respondent No.4- Church; that respondent No.5, who took the premises in question on lease from respondent No.4, has defaulted in paying the lease amounts to respondent No.4; that the President of respondent No.4-Church, in collusion with respondents No.5, is not implementing the resolution passed by respondent No.4 to initiate necessary action against respondent No.5 to vacate the premises; that respondent No.5 has sublet the said premises to respondent No.6, who in turn demolished the structures and is constructing a function hall threin without prior permission from the Municipal authorities; and that their representations to the respondent-authorities did not evoke any response, hence they filed the said Writ Petition. The learned single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition observed that the dispute between the parties is purely a private dispute and that there is no public law element involved in the Writ Petition. Upon perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, we find that disputed questions of fact are involved in the matter, which are to be gone into by an appropriate forum. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned single Judge. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. Dt.28–01-2009. MNR