• *3 APHC010000672025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) c TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 20 OF 2025 Between: 1. Pulupufi Babu Rao, S/o. Pulupuri James Peter, Age; 65 Years, R/o. 39- 33-72/8, MIG 238, VUDA Colony, beside Vijeta Super Market, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam Urban, Visakhapanam District. 2. Beti Raju,, S/o. Srinivasa Rao, Aged 34 years, R/o. H.No. 2-55, SC Colony, Hanuman Temple, Vijaya Rama Raju Peta Gramam, Butachayya Peta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District. 3. Devarapu Chinna Appa Rao, S/o.D. Ramayya, Age. 58 Years, R/o. H.No. 23-49-8, Dayal Nagar Lova, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam, Visakhaptnam District. 4. Mulakapalli Venkata Nuka Raju,, S/o. M. SankaraRao, Age- 45 Years, R/o. H.No.20-3-21, Durgavanipalem, Pedagantyada, GVMC(Part) Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented through Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Chairman, S.C Corporation, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District. 3. The Visakhapatnam District SC Corporation Ltd, Rep. by its Executive Director, Muvvala Vari Veedhi Sector-9 MBP colony, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ...Respondents % Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the high handed and illegal action on the part of the respondents in contemplating to dispossess the petitioners from their possession and enjoyment of shops Nos. 6,13,20 and 32 Pedagantyada Shopping Complex without considering their explanation dated. 02-12-2024 by locking the doors and taken away the keys of the shops on 28- 12-2024 without issuing any Notice, without conducting any Enquiry and without passing any Orders, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, malafide and against the principles of Natural Justice besides violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in any manner including their dispossession from the shops Nos. 6,13,20 and 32 in SC Shopping Complex, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam District, in the interest of justice. at lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners enjoyment of the shops Nos. 6,13,20 and 32 at Pedagantyada Shopping Complex, Visakhapatnam District and handover the keys of the subject shops during the pendency of the writ petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s VASAVI RATNA KUMARI DANDAMUDI Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3: GANDRALA RATHNA KUMAR SC For APSCCFC LTD The Court made the following order: to possession and 1 APHC010000672025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 20/2025 Between; 1.PULUPURI BABU RAO,, S/0. PULUPURI JAMES PETER, AGE- 65 YEARS, R/0. 39-33-72/8, MIG 238, VUDA COLONY, BESIDE VIJETA SUPER MARKET, VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN, VISAKHAPANAM DISTRICT. MADHAVADHARA 2.BETI RAJU„ S/0. SRINIVASARAO, AGED 34 YEARS, R/0. SC COLONY HANUMAN TEMPLE, H.NO. 2-55, VIJAYARAMARAJUPETAGRAMAM, VISAKHAPATNAM VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. BUTACHAYYAPETA, 3.DEVARAPU CH1NNA APPA RAO,, S/O.D. RAMAYYA, AGE. 58 Years, r/o. h.no. 23-49-8, dayal nagar lova, PEDAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPTNAM DISTRICT. 4.MULAKAPALLI VENKATA NUKA RAJU„ S/0. M. SANKARARAO, AGE- 45 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.20-3-21, DURGAVANIPALEM, PEDAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. GVMC(PART) VISAKHAPATNAM, ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CORPORATION,VISAKHAPATNAM VELAGAPUDI, CHAIRMAN, VISAKHAPATNAM S.C 2 DISTRICT. 3.THE VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT SC REP. BY ITS EXCUTIVE DIRECTOR SECTOR-9 VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. CORPORATION LTD, MUWALAVARIVEEDHI VISAKHAPATNAM, MBP COLONY, ...RESPONDENT{S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the high handed and illegal action on the part of the respondents in contemplating to dispossess the petitioners from their possession and enjoyment of shops Nos. 6,13,20 and 32 at Pedagantyada Shopping Complex without considering their explanation dated. 02-12-2024 by locking the doors and taken away the keys of the shops on 28-12-2024 without issuing any Notice, without conducting any Enquiry and without passing any Orders, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, malafide and against the principles of Natural Justice besides violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in any manner including their dispossession from the shops Nos. 6,13,20 and 32 in SC Shopping Complex, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam District, in the interest of justice and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of the shops Nos. 6,13,20 and 32 at Pedagantyada Shopping Complex, Visakhapatnam District and handover the keys of the subject shops during the pendency of the writ petition, in the interest of justice and to pas Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.VASAVI RATNA KUMARI DANDAMUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S); 3 1.GANDRALA RATHNA KUMAR SC For APSCCFC LTD 2.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the fpllowing: The Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action on the part of the respondents in contemplating to dispossess the petitioners from their possession and enjoyment of shop Nos.6, 13, 20 and 32 at Pedagantyada Shopping Complex without considering their explanation dated 02.12.2024 by locking the doors and taking away the keys of the shops on 28.12.2024 without issuing any notice, without conducting any enquiry and without passing any orders as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in any manner of the respective shop 1. nos.6, 13, 20 and 32 in SC Shopping Complex, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam District. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they belong to Scheduled Caste community and they are permanent residents of Visakhapatnam. They were allotted shops as mentioned above in the year 2008 by 3 respondent with a lease amount of Rs.500/- and they are paying the same regularly to the Corporation. There are total 32 shops in that locality. All the 32 shops were allotted by 3*^^ respondent to different rd persons. 3. It is the further case of the petitioners that as the SC Shopping Complex was constructed long back i.e. about 45 years ago, the said shops were in dilapidated condition and they raised their funds and got effected repairs to their shops by investing lakhs of rupees. While the things stood thus, on 16.10.2024, staff of 3'^^ respondent came to the shopping complex and served notice to the petitioners stating that they need to pay arrears of rent to a tune of Rs. 1,08,700/- to the Corporation In that arrears, the petitioners paid Rs.45,000/- as per their records and the differential amount of Rs.63,700/- needs to be paid within a period of 10 days on receipt of the notice. They did not pay the same due to financial crisis. Again 28.11.2024 staff of 3"'^ respondent came to the shopping complex and served a notice stating that they have to vacate the subject shopping complex within 15 days, as the petitioners were running their respective shops by the non-owned persons (binami). For which they have given an explanation on 02.12.2024 to the District Collector explaining their grievance in running the shops. They also made a corhplaint in Spandana on 02.12.2024 itself. Without considering their explanation, the respondent authorities are trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective shops. Hence the Writ Petition. A counter-affidavit came to be filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, deposed by the Executive Director of the Visakhapatnam District Scheduled Castes Service Co-operative Society Limited stating inter alia that on the instructions of the then District Collector and Chairman of the S.C. Corporation (now called as Visakhapatnam District Schedule as on the date 30.9.2024. on 4. 5 Caste Co-operative Society Limited), on 04.01.1985, an extent of 1477 square yards of Steel Plant Acquisition Acquired Land in Pedagantyada of Visakhapatnam District was allotted to 3 respondent society on payment of Rs.29,540/- (at the rate of Rs.20/- per square yard) and a shopping complex was constructed for scheduled caste boys of displaced persons. All the shops have been allotted to various SC beneficiaries on rental basis including the petitioners, subject to certain conditions. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that later it was noticed 5. by 2"'^ and 3'^^ respondents that the rents, in respect of the shops allotted to the SC beneficiaries, including the writ petitioners, have not been paid and huge outstanding rental amounts are due to the respondent no.3 society. Despite repeated phone calls to them by the officials of the respondent no.3 and issue of notice to them to appear before the respondent no.3 on 16.10.2024 with relevant rent paid receipts, though sufficient time was given to them to appear before the respondent no.3, they failed to appear before the respondent no.3 office with relevant rent receipts. As such, a surprise check was conducted on 07.11.2024, wherein it was noticed that the petitioners, in violation of the terms and conditions of the allotment of shops, gave shops on sub-lease to the third parties (binamies). Accordingly, all the binamies were served notices and they were directed to vacate the shops on or before 28.11.2024. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that according to the Rules Regulating the Leasing of Shops in the Shopping Complexes of District Scheduled Castes Services Cooperative Societies Limited, the beneficiary shall not sub-lease the shops to third parties. As the binamies have not vacated the shops within the stipulated time, a panchanama was conducted in the presence of representatives of the Tahsildar, Pedagantyada, the Station House Officer, Pedagantyada, the Zonal Commissioner, Zone-6, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation to vacate the binamies and shops of the petitioners seized on 28.12.2024. The petitioners are prohibited from sub-leasing the shops to third parties and also if the petitioners fail to pay the rent continuously for a period of three months, the Society has every right to forfeit the occupation of the shops by the beneficiary. Suppressing all the above facts, the petitioners filed the Writ Petition. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Babuji Tenneti, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the record. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were allotted shops in the SC shopping complex at Pedagantyada Shopping Complex, Visakhapatnam, in the year 2008. It is stated that several grievance petitions in Public Grievance Redressal System at Collector’s Office, Visakhapatnam and some of the petitions through the A.P. State 6. were 7. 8. 7 Scheduled Caste Commission from various individuals were received complaining that the shops constructed by the SC Corporation and allotted to various SC beneficiaries, are being run by binamies. It is noticed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 that rents in respect of the shops allotted to SC beneficiaries including the writ petitioners, have not been paid regularly and there are huge outstanding rental amounts due, to 3 respondent-society. A notice came to be issued directing the tenants to appear before 3'^^ respondent on 16.10.2024 with relevant rent paid receipts. Thereafter, sufficient time was also granted therefor. As they failed to appear before 3'^^ respondent, a surprise check was conducted on 07.11.2024 to know as to whether the beneficiaries are utilizing the shops or they sublet the shop to third parties (Binamies). It was noticed during the check that the petitioners, in violation of the terms and conditions of the allotment, sublet the respective shop to 3^"^ parties (Binamies). Thereafter, the binamies were served with notices to vacate the shops on or before 28.11.2024. As they failed to do panchanama was also conducted in the presence the representatives of the Tahsildar, Pedagantyada, the Station House Officer, Pedagantyada, the Zonal Commissioner, Zone-6, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation to evict the binamies and the shops of the petitioners were rd SO, a seized on 28.12.2024. 8 Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules Regulating the Leasing of Shops in the Shopping Complexes of District Scheduled Castes Services Cooperative Societies Limited read as follows: ‘8. The beneficiary shall pay the rent regularly. Failure of payment of rent continuously for a period of 3 months will forfeit the beneifciary the right of occupation and the District SC Society shall be at liberty to cancel the allotment and get the beneficiary vacated from the premises, besides proceedings against the person and property of the beneficiary for recovery of the dues. 9. Sub-Leasing or mortgaging of shop is totally prohibited. The District Scheduled Castes Service ' Co-operative Society Limited shall be at liberty to cancel his allotment and get the beneficiary vacated and to take other legal action in case if any sub lease has come to notice. ’ 9. 10. There is no explanation forthcoming from the petitioners as to sub-letting the shops to third parties/binamies. During the surprise check of the officials of 3^^ respondent, it was categorically noticed by them that the petitioners sub-let their respective shops to third parties/ binamies. As per Rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules, sub-leasing mortgaging of shop is totally prohibited, and in case of sub-lease, 3^^ respondent-society is empowered to cancel the allotment and get the beneficiary vacated, apart from taking other legal action. Further, there is also no explanation from the petitioners as to whether they paid the rents regularly up-to-date as on the date of filing of the Writ Petition. or 9 According to records of 3'"^ respondent/society, huge rental amounts are outstanding from the petitioners in respective shops let out to them. The petitioners have not filed any proof that they are paying rents regularly and also they have not submitted any documents to show that they are in possession of their respective shops. Therefore, the acts of the petitioners are in gross violation of the rules and regulations governing the lease. Hence, they are not entitled to the relief sought in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and it is deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- N. NAGA5V!?/1A assistant^ REGISTRAR OFFICER 11. //TRUE COPY// SE To, 1. OneCCto M/s Vasavi Ratna Kumari Dandamudi Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri. Gandrala Rathna Kumar, SC For APSCCFC Ltd [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies Social Welfare, High Court of Andhra Pradesh GSC HIGH COURT DATED:29/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 20 OF 2025 5 n AUG 2025 to Section DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS