The High Court disposed of a writ petition alleging interference with tenants' business by a Cantonment Board official. After the third respondent denied any interference, the court found the apprehension unsustainable and dismissed the petition.
No costs. The writ petition is disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT PETITION No.3119 of 2010
Date: 17.11.2011
Between:
G. Ramesh Yadav and others … Petitioner
And
Secunderabad Cantonment Rep. by its Executive Officer Office of Cantonment Board Secunderabad and others … Respondents
O R D E R:
The petitioners claim to be the tenants of the fourth respondent, wherein they are carrying on business in the name of “Sony International Family Daba”. Alleging that respondents 1, 2 and 4 through the influence of the third respondent are interfering with the enjoyment of the petitioners over the said Daba, this writ petition is filed making an allegation that the fourth respondent has influenced the Government machinery for his personal advantage and that some civil litigations also are pending relating to the said business between the petitioner and the Executive Officer of Secunderabad Cantonment Board.
This Court, while issuing Notice before admission on 11.02.2010 directed that pending further orders respondents 1 to 3 shall not interfere with the possession and business of the petitioners.
Now counter affidavits are filed together with vacate petition by respondent No.5, who claims to be the subsequent purchaser and a separate counter affidavit is also filed by the third respondent. It is categorically mentioned in the counter affidavit of the third respondent that he never interfered with the business of the petitioners nor
summoned them to Bowenpally Police Station threatening them to vacate the said Daba. The third respondent, therefore, says that he has never interfered with the civil disputes, if any, nor tried to evict the petitioner. The said respondent, therefore, denies any misuse of his powers.
The said averments of the third respondent in the counteraffidavit clearly show that he has not interfered with the petitioners’ business in any manner. The apprehension of the petitioners as expressed in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is clearly unsustainable and in view of the fact that the parties are free to agitate their claim in the civil proceedings, which are said to be pending, this writ petition deserves to be disposed of recording the averments of the third respondent that he has not interfered with the civil rights of the petitioners in the business of Sony International Family Daba being carried on at Bunglow No.181, Medchal Road, Bowenpally, Secunderabad.
Recording the above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
_____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
Date: 17.11.2011 va
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the apprehension of interference with the petitioners' business is sustainable given the third respondent's denial of any interference.
G. Ramesh Yadav and others
Secunderabad Cantonment Rep. by its Executive Officer
others
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
