Point of Law: Forceful eviction of pavement dwellers affected their right to life under Article 21. The use of such force in the opinion of this Court particularly in the facts and circumstances of this case is absolutely uncalled for

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, which is proprietary firm, for the following relief:

“….to issue a Writ, order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the notice vide R.C.No.3130/03/1-3, dated 14.11.2020 issued by 3rd respondent when the lease/license exists to vacate premises bearing D.No.11-1-7, T.S.No.1018, Visakhapatnam, without following due process of law as unjust, illegal, arbitrary, against principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)g and 21 Constitution of India, and consequently set aside set aside the notice vide R.C.No.3130/03/1-3, dated 14.11.2020 to vacate premises; and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper.”

2. The petitioner before this Court is represented by 1st learned counsel Sri S.Subba Reddy; respondent is represented by the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration; the 2nd and 3rd respondents are represented by Sri Surya Kiran Kumar, learned standing counsel for Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development. The lead arguments were advanced on behalf of State by Sri KasaJaganmohan Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader. He was supported by the other learned counsel.

3. The petitioner is carrying on business under the name and style of Fusion Foods. The deponent is the sole proprietor. As per the averments in the affidavit the petitioner was allotted certain portion of land and some structures by the VUDA/now VMRDA pursuant to a public auction. The allotment was given on 05.03.2003 for a period of nine years. When the initial license period expired on 10.10.2007, disputes arose between the parties leading to Court cases. However, by a proceeding dated 08.07.2015 the petitioner was once again put in possession of the property. The license was extended for a further period of nine years from 2015 to 2024. These facts are not in doubt.

4. The case of the petitioner is that while the license agreement was valid upto 2024, the respondents by the impugned notice 14.11.2020 sought to terminate the petitioner’s license. On the very next day i.e., on 15.11.2020 it is submitted that (without service of the notice dated 14.11.2020) the petitioner was forcefully evicted from the premises. The respondents used police and other force to forcibly evict the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, questions the manner and method in which he was dispossessed. According to him it is contrary to the Articles 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India. The prayer, therefore, is to declare the action of the respondents is illegal and to put him back in possession.

5. In reply to this Sri KasaJagan Mohan, learned counsel for the respondents argues that the petitioner managed to occupy the premises without valid permission from the Government which decided to cancel the lease and auction the property afresh. It is submitted that for a very meagre rent/license fee the petitioner managed to get the permission extended for a further period of nine years. It is also urged that the petitioner is in possession of approximately 24,000 sq.ft., extra space contrary to the allotted schedule promises; that he has sublet the premises and that terms of the contract were violated totally. It is also urged that the representative of the petitioner was present when the eviction was carried out on 15.11.2020. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that what is granted is only a license and that the petitioner has no “possession” of the property which can be protected by this court. Therefore, learned counsel argues that the action of the respondent is perfectly legal and valid.

6. The respondents used the terms “lease” and “license” very loosely in the course of their correspondence and their pleadings. Even the petitioner is guilty of this.

7. After perusing the pleadings the following few facts, emerge from the counter filed by the respondent.

(a) the respondents agree that there is an agreement between the parties;

(b) it is