IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATJ (Special Original Jurisdiction) ,M FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY 11 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE V 7i\ o// Vi'^ <! PRESENT HON’BLE SRUUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1229 OF 2025 Between: 1. Vijaya Sai Food Care Services, represented by its Proprietor Dr.Bandlamudi Basaveswara Rao, aged about 50 years Head Office Subhananda Nilayam, JKC College Road, Near Orian Restaurant, Guntur-520002, Guntur District, A.P. 2. Mrs. BandlamudiSrilakshmi, W/o Dr.Bandlamudi Basaveswara Rao, aged about 40 years, MBA, Business, R/o Vijaya Sai Food Care Services Head Office, Subhananda Nilayam, JKC College Road Near Orian Restaurant, Guntur- 5.20002, Guntur District. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the principle secretary GAD , Velagapudi, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur Dist. 2. Chief Engineer, Roads AND Building, Andhra Pradesh, MG Rd Beside Punammathota, Labbipet, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 520010 3. The Registrar, Management, Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati 4. A.P.High Court Advocates Association, Rep. by its General Secretary Amaravathi ’ 5. P. Srinivasa Rao, clerk(Out- Sourcing), A.P. High court Association High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, A.P. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue writ, order or particularity one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate direction to the Respondent-4 here in against issuing impugned letter dated 07.01.2025, of Cancellation may % ^ —, (S^the Lease deed and demanding to close down and vacate the canteen v\^thin 3 days, though It is essential service of food and catering in the A.P. High Court canteen till original agreement period is over by 14.07.2025 is -1 illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violation of article 14, 16, 21 and 300 A of the constitution of India and as par the original tenancy agreement dated 10.07.2024. 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 to Direct the 4*^ Respondent to Hand over the keys immediately as there is no possibility for me to continue to provide essential services of supply of food to the Advocates, High Court staff and general public on 20.01.2025 others wise I will suffer great and irreparable loss. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI HARSHA VARDHANA RAO C Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K. JYOTHI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N.V.SUMANTH The Court made the following order: Bench Sr.No:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI APHC010025362025 65 [3483] ?■ WRIT PETITION NO: 1229 of 2025 ...Petitioner(s) Vijaya Sai Food Care Services, and Others Vs. ...Respondent(s) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ********** Mr. C. Harsha Vardhana Rao Mr.K. Chidambaram, Senior Counsel, representing Mr. K. Jyothi Prasad for Advocate for Petitioners; Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): R4 CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE ; 24th January 2025 PC : The petitioner was permitted to run the High Court Advocates’ Canteen, which arrangement was terminated by virtue of communication, dated 07.01.2025, which is impugned in the present petition. The lease in favour of the petitioner was thus cancelled and the petitioner was asked to vacate the canteen premises within three days from the date of issuance of the said communication. 2. Against the impugned communication, dated 07.01.2025, the petitioner is stated to have filed a civil suit for permanent injunction where notices have been issued by the Court below. However, no interim directions as prayed for by the plaintiff/petitioner herein were granted. While the civil suit is pending 2 HCJ a RC, J W.P. No; 1229 of 2025 before the civil Court, the present petition has been filed challenging the decision of the Bar Association, as taken in their communication, dated 07.01.2025, on the ground that since the original agreement was to continue till 14.07.2025, the lease granted in favour of the petitioner could not have been so terminated. The dispute between the petitioner and the respondent Association is more in the nature of a dispute arising out of a contract between the parties to run the canteen. The petitioner already is stated to have approached a civil Court and the matter is pending there. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that whereas the amount of four lakh rupees was due and payable to the Bar Association on account of the lease money, which is calculated at two lakh rupees per month, it is stated that the Bar Association could have as well adjusted the said amount towards the arrears instead of terminating the lease. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Association would submit that the lease was terminated on account of not only the fact that the petitioner was in arrears with regard to the payment but also account of the fact that there were number of complaints received from the members of the Bar reporting unruly behavior on behalf of the petitioner, as also regarding the quality of food that was being served in the said canteen. 4. on 3 HCJ a RC, J W.P. No: 1229 of 2025 It was urged that the termination had been effected in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease agreement, which did give authority to the Bar Association to terminate the lease in certain eventualities. Be that as it may, having heard learned counsel for the parties at some 5. length, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pending the civil litigation before the civil Court, he would make a representation to the Bar Association for releasing the balance amount after adjusting the arrears of lease in favour of the petitioner and further that he would mention in the representation the electronic items, which were installed by the petitioner in the premises in question so that the same could be retrieved from the canteen premises. Learned counsel for the respondent - Association, on the other hand 6. submits that in case any such representation is filed, the same would be considered on its own merits and the decision would be taken within a period of two weeks from the date the said representation is submitted. Be that as it may, the writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand plosed. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGIST^ /' / //TRUE COPY// OFFICER S To 1. The Principle Secretary, GAD, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. € 2. The Chief Engineer, Roads AND Building, Andhra Pradesh MG Rd Beside Balaji Towers, Punammathota, Labbipet, Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh 520010 3. The Registrar (Management), Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati 4. The General Secretary, A.P.High Court Advocates Association Amaravati, Guntur District. ^S(^ne CC to Sri Harsha Vardhana Rao C, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri N.V.Sumanth, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP for General Administration, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Two CD Copies RAM Note: The typographical mistake on the docket portion is rectified. Substitute this amended order in place of earlier order which was despatched on 05.02.2025. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR HIGH COURT DATED:24/01/2025 O 5 2 8 FEB 2C:5 ^ Current Section *»ATC AMENDED ORDER K 2 8FE3 2C:3 :P Cunent Sectln’" WP.No.1229 of 2025 'S DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS