ORDER:

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:

“...to issue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in insisting petitioner to vacate from her Gowdown No.3 in site admeasuring 2000 MTs situated in the premises of Agricultural Market Committee, Rayachoti at the instance and under the influence of local political leaders without following jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice and offends Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the said Gowdown and its premises and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” (in verbatim)

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Agriculture appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 and Sri B. Prakasam, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 & 5.

3. Heard the submissions made by both the learned counsel, and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant interim order directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to make available any other suitable place for the petitioner to carry out his business within a period of two (02) weeks.

4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be allowed to continue in the subject premises for a period of another two months to enable him to make alternative arrangements and till such time the petitioner may be allowed to carry out his business in the said premises, on eve of coming General elections which are to be kept secret and confidential to test the functions of each EVM(Electronic Voting Machines and Ballot Boxes), which is for public purpose. Therefore, the request of the petitioner is not considered.

5. Having perusal the material placed before this court and after hearing submissions of the counsels, the fact remains that the premises was occupied by the respondents in a hasty manner, high handed and arbitrary in nature. The violated all the procedure as contemplated for eviction of the petitioner even though the period of Lease was expired. Leaving all these things aside, the respondents must visualise things much before to the eventualities, being public officer, they cannot behave as like unruly persons as per their will and wish by dehorsing the rule of law. In view of the reasons stated above, the respondent authorities have not acted as per law.

5. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioner for alternative suitable premises within the premises of Market Committee forthwith, if there is no such suitable premises at committee area. Then, the respondents are directed to consider and pass appropriate orders for providing alternative premises if only by way of lease to the petitioner, if he agrees or otherwise it is left open to the petitioner to select any premises as per his will and wish.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ______________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

4th May, 2023.

LSP THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.11389 of 2023

04-05-2023 LSP