Allowed

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Mission v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC5 Nov 2013WP/31608/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged an eviction notice directed at petitioners occupying a room under an allotment. The Court held arbitrary eviction without notice from the allotting authority is impermissible and directed the respondent to consider a pending representation and refrain from eviction pending a decision.

What did the court decide?

The eviction notice was quashed; Respondent No.2 was directed to consider the petitioners' representation and communicate a decision; eviction stayed pending such decision.

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Mission Vs The State of A.P. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31608 of 2013

¶2

Date:05.11.2013

¶3

Between: Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Mission, A.K.Nagar Post, Nellore District, Reptd by its Chairman-K.Tiruvallur and another.

¶4

..... Petitioners

¶5

And:

¶6

The State of A.P., Reptd by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Hyderabad and three others.

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Koppula Gopal Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Social Welfare

¶9

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶10

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notice in Rc.No.B5/213/2013, dated 30.10.2013, whereby respondent No.3 has directed the petitioners to vacate the room in the premises of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Bhavan, Dargamitta, Nellore by 05.11.2013.

¶11

A perusal of the record shows that by proceedings in Rc.No.A4/206/1992, dated 01.05.1992, respondent No.2 has granted permission to petitioner No.1 to locate its branch office on the southern side of the room existing at the entrance of the Ambedkar Bhavan main building with immediate effect. The proceedings, however,

¶12

stipulated a condition that petitioner No.1 shall vacate the room as and when required by the Department.

¶13

It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that in pursuance of the above-mentioned allotment proceedings, they have been in occupation of the room for more than 20 years and that suddenly without issuing a prior notice, respondent No.3 has issued the impugned notice directing the petitioners to vacate the room by 05.11.2013. The petitioners further pleaded that on 01.11.2013, they made a representation to respondent No.2.

¶14

After hearing Sri Koppula Gopal, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare, this Court is of the opinion that having regard to the long standing possession of the petitioners who are inducted in pursuance of an allotment made by respondent No.2, it would be wholly arbitrary on the part of the respondents to unceremoniously evict them. More over, respondent No.2 having allotted the room, respondent No.3 cannot ask the petitioners to vacate the room. If at all, it is only respondent No.2 who can exercise such power for valid reasons. At any rate, before any decision for eviction of the petitioners is taken, the respondents should at least issue a notice to the petitioners to enable them to put forth their stand.

¶15

Inasmuch as the petitioners are stated to have submitted their representation to respondent No.2, the latter is directed to consider same, take a decision and communicate the same to the petitioners. Till such decision is taken by respondent No.2, the petitioners shall not be evicted from the room in their occupation.

¶16

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶17

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.39276 of 2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶18

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 05^th November, 2013 DR

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Mission v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Mission v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Venakta Ramana Reddy, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Gonepally Anjaneyulu, Vs State of A.P.

Mukkamalla Venkateshwara Reddy, Vs The District Collector

Meer Javid Hussain, Vs The District Collector

Badesab Vs The Ap State Wakf Board

Durgapu Anantaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh