IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31973 of 2011 Between: Indus Towers Limited Hyderabad & another. … Petitioners And Dr. Marri Channa Reddy Human Resources Development Institute of A.P., Hyderabad. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Avinash Desai This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31973 of 2011 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in issuing letters, dated 27.10.2011 and 29.11.2011, whereunder it has demanded the rents from the petitioners for utilizing its land for erection of cell towers. Sri Avinash Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously contended that the action of the respondent in demanding the rents is wholly arbitrary. The respondent is an organ of the State Government, which is involved in imparting training to various categories of public servants. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that an understanding was reached between them and the respondent, whereby they were permitted to utilize a part of the premises of the respondent for erection of cell towers without the liability on their part to pay any rentals. The petitioners averred that such an understanding was arrived at, as by erecting the cell towers the respondent will also be provided with receiving signals. The petitioners felt aggrieved by the impugned letters, whereunder rentals at varied rates have been demanded for utilizing the land. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the dispute raised by the petitioners does not fall under the public law domain for being amenable to the writ jurisdiction. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that in course of discharge of its statutory functions, the respondent has permitted them to use its land. Obviously, like any other individual, the respondent appeared to have reached an understanding with the petitioners pursuant to which the cell towers were permitted to be erected. The question whether the respondent agreed under such understanding not to collect rentals or not and even if the respondent is entitled to collect rentals, what will be the reasonable quantum of rentals are the issues which need to be adjudicated by the common law courts on the appreciation of the evidence that may be adduced by both the parties. For the above reasons, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed without going into the merits of the case with liberty to the petitioners to approach the civil Court for claiming appropriate relief. As a sequel, WPMP.Nos.39685 and 39686 of 2011 are also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 03.12.2011 ES