IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.24362 of 2007 Between: Kunj Bihari Sharma. … Petitioner And: The State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner: Party-in-person. Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Home for R.1 to R.3. Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao for R.5. None for R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioner’s business - being carried on in Shop No.2-3-75, admeasuring 20 feet x 90 feet, situated at M.G.Road, opposite to Andhra Bank, Sirpur Kagaznagar, Adilabad District - as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Kunj Bihari Sharma, who appeared as party-in-person; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents 1 to 3; and Sri V.Ravikiran Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.5. The gist of the allegations made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that on his approaching Sirpur Kagaznagar Paper Mills Ltd., (for short “the Mills”), the latter permitted him to start a kiosk over the above mentioned land; and that persons, who are similarly placed to the petitioner, were also allotted such premises. While the petitioner has started electrical services & repairing works in the name and style of M/s.Sharma Electronics and was carrying on the said business, on 28-8-2006 respondents 4 and 5, who are neighbours to him, with an evil intention, prevented him from carrying on the said business, destroyed and dismantled the stall and damaged the valuable electronic goods kept in the shop. He also alleged that on 13-7-2005 certain goods were stolen by respondent No.4 and his henchmen and that a case was registered in that regard. He further alleged that Sirpur Kagaznagar Police illegally detained him on 21-10-2006, beat him severely and threatened him to vacate the premises; that he suffered a fracture to his right hand; that on the same day the Police have taken away all the electronic and household articles from his shop in a truck; and that, later, the Commissioner of Sirpur Kagaznagar Municipality, Revenue Inspector and the Mandal Revenue Officer of Sirpur Kagaznagar have dismantled his premises without any notice. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and 5. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3 it is , inter alia, stated that the premises in which the petitioner was running the electrical shop was originally leased out to one Nathulal, who is the husband of respondent No.4; that after his death it was leased out to respondent No.4, who has been paying the lease amount to the Mills and taxes to the Municipality; and that, subsequently, respondent No.4 leased out the said premises to the petitioner. It is further stated that disputes arose between the petitioner and respondent No.4 and the latter sought to give the said premises on lease to respondent No.5; that respondent No.4 got the Zink sheets over the premises removed leading to registration of Crime No.92 of 2005 in connection with which one Vinid Yadav was arrested and Zink sheets were recovered. It is also stated that no electrical goods were stolen, but they were damaged due to removal of Zink sheets and heavy rain; and that the criminal case is pending before the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sirpur. As regards the allegation of the petitioner that the Police have not taken any action, respondent No.3 stated that as the dispute is of civil nature, they have not interfered with the same; that the premises was leased out by respondent No.4 to respondent No.5, who has been in possession of the same from 28-8-2006; that his enquiries revealed that the Sirpur Kagaznagar Municipality recorded the name of respondent No.5 as the possessor; that criminal cases are pending between the petitioner and respondent No.4 & her son, vide: Cr.Nos.118, 119,202 to 205 of 2005; and that on 4-9- 2006 the Municipality directed respondent No.5 to remove the structure or repair it in view of its dangerous position, which may cause harm to the neighbours and passersby. Respondent no.3 denied the allegations made by the petitioner that the Police have illegally detained him on 21-10-2006, beat him severely and threatened him to vacate the premises. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, this Court passed an order on 5-12-2008 appointing Smt. Bhagyamma Marreddy as the Advocate-Commissioner to find out whether the petitioner is running business in the premises in question, whether the premises is under lock, and whether the premises is in a condition to conduct business as on that date. The Advocate- Commissioner filed a report, wherein it is, inter alia, stated that her enquiries revealed that from the year 2005 onwards electrical shop was not run by the petitioner; that respondent No.4 removed the Zink sheets on account of which there is no scope for running the shop in the said premises; and that as per the order of the Commissioner, Sirpur Kagaznagar Municipality, the walls were also removed to ensure public safety. In the light of the averments contained in the counter-affidavit of respondent No.3 and the report of the Advocate-Commissioner, it is not possible for this Court to accept the petitioner’s contention that he has been presently running the business and that the Police and the private respondents have been interfering with the running of his business. The counter-affidavit of respondent No.3, as noted above, reveals that many criminal cases are pending between the petitioner and respondent No.4. The Police have denied their interference in the civil disputes. Having regard to these facts, this Court cannot grant any direction to the respondents to protect the purported possession of the petitioner. In my opinion, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the competent civil Court to get his right, if any, declared over the property in question. Since respondent No.3 has categorically stated that the Police are not interfering, no direction need be issued in this regard. At any rate, as found by the Advocate- Commissioner, the stall said to have been erected by the petitioner does not seem to be intact as its roof and walls were removed. If respondent No.4 has committed any offence, the same is required to be adjudicated in the pending criminal cases. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, all the interlocutory applications, pending in this case, are also disposed of as infructuous. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:22-03-2010 MNR