ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:

“to issue Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly respondent No 2 in passing order vide Proc Roc No 2618/A1/2022- 24 dated 03/02/2024 which was communicated to the petitioner on 07/02/2024 and subsequently seizing the petitioner’s leased premises on 13/02/2024 ie., Anand Bhavan Grand Restaurant Anand Bhavan Hotel Chat Mantra (Food Stall) at TOWN HALL, admeasuring 1420.

58 Sq Yards, having carpet Area of 12,785.24 Sq feet along with open area of 5489.99 Sq yards the total extent of land admeasuring 6910.57 Sq. yards, situated at opposite to Municipal Park, Jagtial Town & District, without following due procedure of law, in contravention to the covenants of the Lease Deed dated 26/02/2022, as illegal arbitrary in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India, in violation of principles of natural justice besides being in violation of the Municipalities Act and to consequently set aside order passed by the respondent No.2 vide Proc Roc No 2618/A1/202224 dated 03/02/2024, including the direction to the respondent No.2 herein to remove the seal/seizure forthwith in respect of the petitioner’s leased premises i.e., Anand Bhavan Grand Restaurant Anand Bhavan Hotel Chat Mantra (Food Stall) at TOWN HALL admeasuring 1420.58 Sq Yards having carpet Area of 12,785.24 Sq feet along with open area of 5489. 99 Sq yards the total extent of land admeasuring 6910.

57 Sq yards, situated opposite to Municipal Park Jagtial Town and District”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for MA&UD, Sri Jagan Madhav Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and with the consent of the Counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

3. Petitioner contends that he was granted lease of the property which is popularly known as ‘town hall’ for a period of 5 years under registered rent/lease agreement dated 26.02.2022 on the terms and conditions agreed upon; that while the petitioner is carrying on its activities in the town Hall as agreed upon under the agreement, the 2nd respondent had issued notice dated 22.01.2024 claiming that the petitioner has violated various covenants of the agreement and called upon the petitioner to submit explanation within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice; that the petitioner submitted his reply/explanation dated 29.01.2024; and that the 2nd respondent without considering the explanation/reply in its correct perspective had issued the proceeding dated 03.02.2024 and had seized the premises/property leased to it.

4. Petitioner further contends that the action of the 2nd respondent in seizing the subject premises leased to it on the ground of alleged violations of the covenants of the agreement are all invented to cause hurdles, the business activity of the petitioner on account of change of Government; and that the petitioner is conducting its business activities in the subject premises as permitted under the agreement.

5. Petitioner further contends that as per the covenants of the lease deed, he is permitted to set up stalls to reflect the culture and traditions of Telangana and based on the existence of such covenant in the agreement, he had set up a hotel by obtaining trade license from the concerned Municipal authorities. Petitioner further contends that the 2nd respondent authority was fully aware of the petitioner carrying on the business of opening and running of restaurant in the aforesaid premises from the commencement of lease term itself and initiation of the action of the present nature, all of a sudden is motivated.

6. Petitioner further contends that though the impugned proceeding issued states that an Appeal to be preferred there against to the District collector, Jagtial or RDMA, Warangal, the same