THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16715 OF 2010 Dated:17.08.2010 Between: Smt. Ch. Dhana Lakshmi .. Petitioner And The Jagtial Municipality, rep., by its Commissioner, Jagtial, Karimnagar District and another .. Respondents O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioner from the premises situated in Ward No.14, Jagtial, Karimnagar District, without following the due process of law, as arbitrary and illegal. Heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the material available on record including the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. Admittedly, the land in question belongs to the 1st respondent- Municipality. The petitioner states that by proceedings dated 01.12.1990, 20 square metres of the municipal road margin was leased out to the petitioner on payment of monthly rent of Rs.50/- subject to the fulfillment of the conditions specified therein. It is stated that the petitioner had erected a tin shed on the said land for running a cycle taxi. It is pleaded that subsequently the petitioner had entered into a partnership with one V.Vijaya Kumar in whose favour a licence was granted under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act to run a retail liquor shop. For the purpose of the said business, when a retail liquor shop was established in the premises in question, it is alleged that the respondents had highhandedly seized the premises in question. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, it is stated that the petitioner being an encroacher on the municipal land in Ward No.14 was permitted to run a petty business of cycle taxi vide proceedings dated 01.12.1990. However, the petitioner had established a wine shop in the said premises without informing the Municipality. In the circumstances, notices dated 02.07.2010, 06.07.2010 and 10.07.2010 were issued for removal of the wine shop in question. Since the petitioner failed to receive the same, the notices were served through substituted service by affixure on the shutters of the wine shop. Even then as there was no response from the petitioner, the 1st respondent was constrained to seize the wine shop in question. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit stating that the notices were not served on her and the impugned action of the respondents in seizing the premises without following due process of law was arbitrary and illegal. However, the fact that a wine shop was established in the premises in question could not be disputed. Be that as it may, when the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the respondents that vide proceedings, dated 31.07.2010, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad, had permitted the licencee to shift the wine shop by name M/s. Madhura Wines to a different place situated in the same locality and pursuant thereto the shop in question had already been shifted. The said fact has not been disputed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in case a request is made by the petitioner or the licensee of M/s. Madhura Wines to open the seals put to the premises so as to enable them to remove the infrastructure available therein, the first respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law. Even according to the respondents as the lease granted in favour of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 01.12.1990 is still subsisting, it is made clear that if the respondents intend to recover the possession of the site allotted to her, they are bound to follow the due process of law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________ G.ROHINI, J 17.08.2010 Note:- Furnish C.C. by 19.08.2010. (B/o) KH