THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.NO.32312 OF 2011 ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st and 2nd respondents in removing the old structures of Shop Nos.17,18,19 and 20, situated at Municipal Complex, Old Bus Stand, Bhongir, without allotting the shops in the new complex even after completing the construction in spite of representation as per the resolution dated 30-11-1998 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to accommodate the shops facing to main road in the new complex before removal of present old complex and till such time to allow the petitioners to continue their business in the present premises. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are tenants doing business in Municipal Complex, Old Bus Stand, Bhongir and paying rents regularly to the 1st respondent. They are in possession and enjoyment of the same for the last more than 40 years. While so, in November, 1998, the 1st respondent informed the petitioners that they will remove the old structures of the complex and construct the new complex in the premises. Hence, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 23-11-1998 to the Chairman, Bhongir Municipality. On 20- 11-1998, the 1st respondent issued a notice to the petitioners directing them to vacate the shops in question within 7 days. Again, on 8-12-1998, the petitioners submitted another representation stating that whenever the construction completes, they shift their shops to the new complex. On 30-11-1998, they came to know that the council of the Municipality conducted a meeting and passed a resolution to allot the new shops to the petitioners. After issuing notice by the Municipality, the petitioners made a representation to the 1st respondent stating that they are willing to vacate the old premises immediately after allotting the shops in new complex, but no orders have been passed thereon. On 25-1-1999, the 1st respondent tried to demolish the shops of the petitioners. The removal of the shops by the respondents without allotting the shops in new complex is arbitrary and illegal. Hence, the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners gave a representation to the respondents to continue them in the premises in question since they have been continuing for more than 40 years. He further contends that in case, the old shops are demolished, the petitioners may be allotted alternate accommodation. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that new shops constructed in the premises will be auctioned and if the petitioners want, they have to participate in the action and the question of allotting new shops directly to the petitioners does not arise. No doubt, the petitioners have been in possession of the old shops for the last more than 40 years. The 1st respondent Municipality constructed new shopping complex and the shops would be auctioned. If at all the petitioners want to continue in the shops, they have to necessarily participate in the auction that may be conducted by the Municipality. The petitioners have no right to continue in the premises in question and the question of allotting new shops directly to the petitioners does not arise. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to participate in the auction whenever it is notified. No costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU,J rkk Dated: 14-12-2011