The single-judge High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a shop occupier challenging the eviction demand by the Municipal Administration. The court directed respondents not to take coercive steps without adhering to due process of law.
Directed the respondents not to take any coercive steps without following due process of law.
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 C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 21093 of 2016
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. With the consent of all the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
“Issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in insisting the petitioner to vacate Shop No.4 of Ravi Ramayya Municipal Mini Market Shopping Complex, situated in Tenali Town, without following due process of law, as illegal, irregular, irrational, without jurisdiction and violative of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and rules framed there under; and consequently direct the second respondent not to interfere in any manner with his possession over the said shop.”
The grievance of the petitioner is that without giving any notice and without following due process of law, the second respondent is insisting the petitioner to vacate the shop.
Learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent submits that no steps will be taken without following due process of law and everything will be done in accordance with law.
Recording the statement made by the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent, the writ petition is disposed
of directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps without following due process of law. No order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN
KUMAR
29.06.2016 gkv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent could insist the petitioner to vacate the shop without giving notice or following due process of law.
Whether the action of the respondent in demanding eviction is illegal, irregular, irrational and violative of statutory provisions.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Municipal Administration and Urban Development
Respondent No. 2
C. Praveen Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
