1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.1438 of 2008 Shri Ambernath Kalu Sonawane Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra through the Chief Officer, Children’s Aid Society & ors. Respondents Mr.P.O.Verghese for petitioner. Ms.V.S.Mhaispurkar, AGP for respndents. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. April 16, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Verghese, the learned counsel for the petitioner who was initially allotted space of 4 ft. x 4 ft. in the premises of the Children’s Aid Society at Matunga and subsequently he asked for additional premises. The Competent Authority issued a show cause notice on and subsequently by an order dated 27/12/2001 he was called upon to hand over the premises. This order was challenged in Misc. Appeal No.24 of 2002 which was allowed on 8/4/2002 and the matter was remanded to the Competent Authority to decide afresh. In the second round the Competent Authority passed an order on 24/10/2003 and called upon the petitioner to vacate the premises. This order was challenged in Misc. Appeal No. 223 of 2 2003 which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 22/1/2008 rendered by the learned Principal Judge, Bombay City Civil Court. 2. There is no dispute that the premises were allotted to the petitioner as he is a physically handicapped person and to facilitate him to run an STD booth. The agreement period was initially for three years and even though it was for the additional premises of 4 ft x 4 ft., in Writ Petition No.1509 of 1998, a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 6/8/1999 had called for a report from the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar and it had directed the State Government to ensure that the premises for the Children’s Aid Society at Mahim/Matunga would be free from all tenants / occupants and, therefore, the Competent Authority had initiated the eviction proceedings against the petitioner. 3. The petitioner does not have any vested right to remain on the Government premises forever. If he has been allotted telephone booth by any telephone company or by MTNL / BSNL, he will have to locate the same at an alternative premises. The order passed by 3 the lower Appellate Court cannot be faulted with as the same cannot be termed as perverse or manifestly erroneous. 4. Hence the petition is rejected summarily. However, the petitioner is given a period of eight weeks to vacate. Liberty granted by the lower Appellate Court remains in-tact. (B.H.MARL