P. VENKATARAMA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners herein claim to have erected temporary wooden structures (referred to in the writ petition as Dabbas) of the dimension of 6 x 4 feet some time in or about the year 1980 and they have been doing the business of auto-electrical repairs of vulcanizing. These two structures (or bunks) rest on the compound wall of King Koti Palace building adjacent to the public road. The petitioners submit that the Municipal Corporation has been granting permission to run shops after collecting encroachment fee. The first encroachment fee receipt issued by the Municipal Corporation on 24-8-81 and the last of the receipts dated 2-3-91 issued to the 1st petitioner are filed. In the case of the 2nd petitioner, the encroachment-fee receipt dated 10-9-85 and 21-3-91 are filed. It is seen from the letter dated 24-4-81 issued by the Estate Officer of the Municipal Corporation and the receipts that the encroachment-fee was collected and permission was granted on year to year basis. It is claimed that there is no obstruction to the vehicular traffic or pedestrians on account of the existence of these bunks. It is not in dispute that after the year 1991, no encroachment-fee was collected from the petitioners and no permission was granted to the petitioners. It is stated in the writ petition that the officials of the Municipal Corporation dodged to receive the fees and they began threatening to remove the Dabbas on 10-11-93. The oral representation made by the petitioners was of no avail. Hence the petitioners submit that they have no other alternative but to approach this Court. The petitioners have sought for a direction to the respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the Dabbas and not to remove them and to regularise their continuance or to allow separate space for doing their business. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the threatened action of the Municipal Corporation is violative of the petitioners rights under Articles 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution, that the Municipal Corporation cannot interfere with their right to do business unless and until appropriate space is allotted to them and that the Municipal Corporation itself, having permitted the petitioners to put up temporary bunks on the collection of fee, cannot force the petitioners to remove them. In any case, without giving a reasonable notice, the petitioners cannot be evicted. It is also submitted in the course of arguments that some other persons who have put up similar structures are being permitted to continue at the same place and that the action against the petitioner amounts to discrimination. The learned Counsel has relied upon various judgments of this Court which will be adverted to later.

( 2 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant City Planner, Circle VI on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the Corporation, with a view to take up the widening of Boggulakunta road as per approved road development plan, had not been collecting encroachment-fee from the petitioners from 1990-91 onwards. It is stated that the existing old compound wall of King Koti is being affected by the road widening. The Corporation is taking over the site from the concerned owners including the State Government for road widening. By allowing scooters and other vehicles in front of their bunks, lot of traffic problems are created by the petitioners on this important road. It is denied that the petitioners have ever approached the Corporation. It is then stated that the petitioners bunks were removed on 16-11-93 and suppressing this fact the present writ petition was filed as if there is a threat of removal. It is categorically stated that the petitioners bunks are no longer existing on the road in question. It is submitted that the Corporation has removed all the encroachments excepting the bunks covered by the order of the City Civil Court. In the course of arguments, it is stated that even those bu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document