THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No.2951 of 2023

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for MA&UD appearing for respondent No.1, learned Standing Counsel for Municipality appearing for respondent No.2, and perused the record.

2. However, having regard to the manner of disposal of the writ petition and the nature of lis involved, this Court is of the view that notice to the respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are arrayed as Eo Nomine, is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that it is an entity, represented by its proprietor/owner i.e., the petitioner herein; that he is doing business in sale of chicken by obtaining trade license from the 2^nd respondent-Municipality; that on 16.10.2022, the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents along with lady staff of the 2^nd respondent came to the petitioner’s shop and sealed it on the ground that he cannot undertake business in private premises and has to shift the business to the new municipal integrated market constructed by the 2^nd respondent at a distance of 1k.m., from the petitioner’s shop; that in the new municipal integrated market constructed by the 2^nd respondent with three floors, the space for chicken market is shown in the 2^nd floor, which is not feasible; and that on the 2^nd respondent and its staff resorting to the aforesaid act, he had approached this Court and filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.40566 of 2022, which was disposed of by this Court on 11.11.2022.

4. Petitioner further contends that on the aforesaid writ petition being disposed of by this Court directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to do business in his shop, the 3^rd and 4^th respondents became enimical towards him and erected dustbins in front of the petitioner’s shop, and also started dumping municipal waste in front of his shop, thereby threatening the petitioner to close his shop.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 3^rd and 4^th respondents started dumping municipal waste everyday in front of the petitioner’s shop and thereafter, issued notice, dt.24.01.2023, without containing any number or seal of the municipality directing the petitioner to vacate the shop bearing municipal No.12-104/2 by giving (07) days time, failing which the petitioner was informed that further action will be taken as per the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (for short ‘the Act’).

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 3^rd and 4^th respondents thereafter have called him to the Collector’s Office and threatened him to close the business.

7. Petitioner further contends that he has been running his business in the said shop since 2010 and that the respondents on the pretext of having constructed an integrated market cannot force the petitioner to shift his business to the said new market constructed by them by issuing the impugned notice, dt.24.01.2023, while there are (10) similar such shops existing/running within the proximity of the petitioner’s shop, thus, the action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal, null & void, and arbitrary.

8. Counter affidavit on behalf of the 2^nd respondent is filed. By the counter affidavit, the 2^nd respondent while denying the writ averments would contend that the government had constructed an integrated municipal market complex with modern facilities at a cost of Rs.11 Crores; that since, the existing veg., and non-veg., markets are situated in a small piece of land and is very much congested and is obstructing the free flow of traffic, all the traders and vendors, who used to sell in the existing old market, have been allotted shops in the newly constructed integrated municipal market complex; and that many of the shop keepers have shifted their business in the new market complex.

9. By the counter affidavit it is further stated that the petitioner, who is running chicken shop at the old market place, was allotted shop bearing No.20 in the n