Disposed

Mohammad Anwar and 16 others v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC3 Jun 2021WP/12627/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a threat to dispossess vegetable vendors from shops at Shivaji Chowk, Adilabad, without prior notice. The Court directed authorities to allow business within premises but warned against road encroachment.

What did the court decide?

The official respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioners' business conducted within their earmarked premises/shops.

Mohammad Anwar and 16 others Vs The State of Telangana… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 12627 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mohammad Anwar, S/o Md. Hafeez,^{Age 55 years, Occ. VegetableVender, R/o} Shop No. 52, Shivaji Chowk, Adilabad.

¶10

Shaik Rahman, S/o Shaik Bhikku^{Age 60 years, Occ. Vegetable Vender,Rl/o} Shop No. 3-3-2111A, Shivaji Chowk,^Adilabad.

¶11

Shaik Zaheer, S/o Shaik Johny^{Miya, Age 35 years, Occ, VegetableVender'R/o} Shop No. AG, Shivaji Chowk, Adilabad.

¶12

Shaik Dadan, S/o Biban, Age 75^years, Occ.^{Vegetable Vender,R/o ShopNo.6-} 7 -58121 I 4, Shivaji Chowk, Adilabad.

¶13

Javeen Bin Abdullah, S/o^{Sale Miya, Age 50 years, Occ. VegetableVender, R/o} Shop No. 7A, Shivaji Chowk, Adilabad.

¶14

Abdi.rl lvlanan, S/o'Shaik Deewan,^{Age 65 years,Occ Vegetable Vender,Rio} Shop No. 47, Shiva.ii Chowk,^Adilabad.

¶15

Shaik Chand, S/o Shaik Jalal, Age^{40 years, Occ. VegetableVender, Rio Shop} No. 36, Shivaji Chowk, Adilabad.

¶16

8 Sk Shakeel, Sio Snaik Johny,^{Age 50 years, Om VegetableVender, R/o Shop} No. A5, Shivaji Chowk, Adilabad.

¶17

Md. Rifeeq, S/o Khaza^{Moinuddin,Age42 years, Occ. VegetableVender' R/o} Shop No, 38, 40, 41, Shivaii Chowk, Adiltad.

¶18

'10. S. Ganga Reddy, S/o Gahganna, Age 60 years, Occ. Vegetable Vender, R/o Shop No. 29, Shivaji Chowk,^Adilabad.

¶19

11 ahaik Saleem, S/o Sfraif^{Mohammad Age50 years,Occ.Vegetable Vender,R/o} Shop No. 48, Shivaji Chowk,^Adilabad _

¶20

lZ.Saniosfr, S/o Shamiao, Age^{50 years, Occ. Vegetable Vender,R/o ShopNo 49,} Shivaii Chowk, Adilabad.

¶21

rg.Shai(Hateez, S/o Shaik Madar,^{Age50 years, Occ.VegetableVender,FVoShop} No. 32, Shivaji Chowk, Adilabad.

¶22

t+.SfraitiNazeer, Slo Shiik^{Mader, Age 45' Occ, VegetableVender, Fl/o Shop No'} 33. Shivaii Chowk, Adilabad.

¶23

rs.Str'aii lorirrim, S/o Shaik^{Rasheed,Age 50 years, occ. VegetableVender,Rl/o} Shop No. 30, Shivaii Chowk,^Adilabad.

¶24

f O.Sunian Bai, W/o S'angde Makkaji,^{Age 50 years, Occ. Vegetable Vender,Fl/o} Shoo No. 56, Shivaii Chowk,^Adilabad.

¶25

Shaik Hyder, S/o Shaik Near^{Mohammed, Age 65 years,Occ.Vegetable Vender,} R/o Shop No. 44, 45, Shivaji^{Chowk,Adilabad.}

¶26

...'ET'T.ONERS

¶27

AND

¶28

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by^{its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration} a nd U rba n Develop'ment Department^{Secretariat,Hyderabad.}

¶29

2 Adilabad Municipality, Rep. by^{its Commissioner, Adilabad, AdilabadDistrict.}

¶30

...RESPONDENTS

¶31

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High court may be pleasedto} issue an appropriate writ, order or^{Direction, more particularlyone in the nature of} Writ of Mandamus, to declare the^{action of the respondent authorities in threatening} to dispossess the^petitioners from^{theirrespective shops bearing its No.52,3-3-} 211tA,A6,6-7-58t2114,7A,47,36,^A5,38,40,41 ,29,48,49,32,33,30.56'^{44' 45} situated at Shivaji chowk, Adilabad^{District,without issuinganynoticeand without} following the^procedure contemplated^{underthe Law, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust}

¶32

il2il

¶33

and violative of Article 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents authorities to not to take any coercive^{steps withoutfollowing} the due process of Law.

¶34

lA NO: 1 OF 2O2'l

¶35

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support^qf. the petltion, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not io dispossess or in any manner interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners from their respective shops bearing its No.52,3-3-211lA, 46,6-7-5812114,7A.,47,36, A5,38,40, 41 ,29,48,49,32,33,30, 56, 44, 45 situated at Shiva.ji Chowk, Adilabad District,, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. GAJANAND CHAKRAVARTHI

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent No.1:

¶38

GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶40

The Court at the stage of admission made the following: ORDER

¶41

F:------=;i-.'-*j=

¶42

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶43

WRIT PETITION No. 12627 of 2O2L

¶44

ORDER:

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government^ptelaer for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No. 1 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶46

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners questioning the action of the respondents in threatening to dispossess them from their respective shops, situated at Shivaji Chowk, Adilabad District u'ithout follor',,ing due process of law.

¶47

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that thc petitioners al'('^rlwners of their respective shops bearing Nos, 52, 3-i-211i,, A6, 6-7-58121/4, 7A, 47, 36, A5, 38, 40, 4r, 29, 48, 49, 32, 33, 30, 56, 44 and 45, situated at Shivaji Chowk, Adilabad District and that they are merely carrying on their^dailv business of selling vegetables. That on 20.O5.2021 and 24.O5.2O2I, without issuing any prior notice, the officials of the respondent No. 2 came to the shops of the petitioners and demanded to vacate and handover the possession of the shopsⁱⁿ question.

¶48

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent^No. 2'^on ins[ru(:tions, has stated that the petitioners were nol^{al]or.l'edarlv} shops olTiciall:/, that the petitioners are conducting^{the busincss ol'} selling vegetables, and in the^{process, they are encroachingthe} roacl margins and tlot following^{the Covid-i 9 guidelines. ln that} view of thc matter, the officials^{of respondent No. 2 have cautioned} the petitioners not to conduct^{the business on the road margins}

¶49

¶50

and not to^{violate the Covid-l9guidelines'It is stated thatthe} respondent No.2^{has no objectionas long as the petitioners} conduct their^{businessfrom their respective shops followingthe} Covid-l9^{guidelines.That in casethe respondentNo' 2 wants to} evictthepetitionersfromtheirshopstheofficialswilltake necessary steps^{in accordancewith law'}

¶51

ln view of the submission^{of the learnedStanding Counsel} for the respondent^{No. 2, the writ petition is disposedof directing} the official respondents^{not to interfere with the business being} conductecl b-v the^{petitioners, as long as lhel' conduct their} business lr'ithin^{the earmarkedpremises/ shops. lt is made clear} that the petitioners^{shall not conductany sort of businesson the} road margins or outside^{the premisesof theirrespectiveshops lt} is also made clear that^{in casethe officials of respondentNo' 2} v/ant to take any^{steps for evictingthe petitioners from their} respective shops, they^{shall do so strictly in accordance with 1aw'}

¶52

The miscellaneous^{petitions pending, ifany, shallstand}

¶53

closed. There shall be^{no orderas to costs.}

¶54

SD/.K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT^REGIST R //TRUE COPY// SECTIO FFICE R

¶55

To, 1 The Princioal Secretary'^{Municipal Administration and Urban Development} b"iat*65r'stiG^{oi f"ran gani Secretariat'Hyd erabad} 2. i;5U;;i.;;;"r.^{noiruoJo-Mrnicipalitv,Adilibad AdilabadDistrict'} .> o;:, Et i; s;iciiinino -Cnar.tavadhi Advocate [oPUcl 4. Two CCs to^{GP for wrnicipai'Ai'n'i'tiiJit't1""ino^UrbanDevelopment'High} c"r,r toitiL^{Siateof Tetariqana at Hyderabad[oUT]} q 5"" ic'tii sti'il'.^{piuu""nRumar'se for Muniiipalities [oPUC]} 6. Two CD Copies CHR ".y

HIGH GOURT

DATED:0310612021

ORDER

W.P.No.12627 of 2021

1HE SiA
(,3.
oo
0 7 JUt{ 202t
:;:t
', , 1-;i! (..*

¶61

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS o26v

Mohammad Anwar and 16 others v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Anwar and 16 others v. The State of Telangana and another

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

B.Shankar Naik Vs The State of Telangana

Adviti Constructions Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.

Madire Prabhu Lingam Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited and 4 Others

M/S Avanii Meadows Private Limited. Vs The State Of Telangana

Vishnu Constructios Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd. and 3 Others

M/s. Sethus Building Army Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others