THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21261 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner challenges the proceedings dated 01.10.2009 through which the respondents have cancelled the order of allotment, dated 24.08.2009 issued in his favour. The mother of the petitioner was allotted a shop by the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam as a matter of rehabilitation for acquiring her property in the course of implementation of master plan. After the death of the mother of the petitioner, the allotment was transferred in his favour. In the course of further development on the hills, the petitioner was shifted to shop No.9/126 nearby Asthana Mandapam, vide proceedings dated 29.05.2004. However, on the request made by the petitioner, he was shifted to shop No.459 at Main Shopping Complex vide proceedings dated 15.11.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner made a request to allot him shop No.453 in the same complex and the same was acceded to vide proceedings dated 26.06.2008. The petitioner made a representation stating that he is facing inconvenience in shop No.453 and requested for alternative allotment. Vide proceedings dated 24.08.2008, the Assistant Executive Officer allotted a newly constructed shop between Annapurna Canteen and Banking Complex in favour of the petitioner. Hardly within one month, the impugned proceedings have been issued cancelling his allotment. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that he was not issued any notice before the order of cancellation was passed and no alternative allotment was made. Other contentions are also urged. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent. The various facts pleaded by the petitioner up to the allotment of newly constructed shop vide proceedings dated 24.08.2008 are admitted. However, it is stated that the said allotment was found to be not in order and accordingly the order impugned was passed. It is also stated that the petitioner avoided service of the said order. Heard Sri N. Sreerama Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. The mother of the petitioner was extended the benefit of allotment of a shop by the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam as a measure of rehabilitation. After her death, the allotment was transferred in favour of the petitioner. The allotment made on 29.05.2004 is in respect of shop No.9/126, and the petitioner conducted business therein for nearly 3 ½ years. On his request shop No.459 in the Main Shopping complex was allotted on 15.11.2007. Hardly within six months, he made a representation for allotment of another shop and accordingly, the neighbouring shop No.453 in the same complex was allotted on 26.06.2008. The petitioner appears to be having good acquaintance with the officials of Devasthanam. Otherwise one cannot expect the allotment of shops in such a frequent intervals, that too, at the whims of the petitioner. After the petitioner occupied shop No.453, he made efforts to get another allotment of shop. The level of influence is such that a new shop was constructed for his benefit between Annapurna Canteen and Banking Complex. Naturally the authorities of the administration took note of this and the same resulted in cancellation of his allotment. The petitioner does not have any right, much less, fundamental right to insist that he must be allotted a shop of particular description or at any location. It has already been mentioned that allotments were made nearly three times at the request of the petitioner. The allotments so made do not confer any right upon the petitioner. Ultimately it is for the Devasthanam to examine its convenience. It must not be forgotten that establishment of shops is not at all the principal or even ancillary concern of the Devesthanam and it is only for the benefit of pilgrims. The independent construction of a shop for the petitioner on one pretext or the other cannot be sustained. Therefore the writ petition is dismissed and the impugned order is upheld. It is however directed that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the shop where he is conducting business, till he is allotted another shop in the main complex or at other available places, which in turn shall be done within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 20th April, 2010 Note: C.C. in 3 days. (B/o) Js.