APHC010310622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 15597/2025 Between: 1. KAMJULA VENKATA RAMI REDDY, S/O VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. TENANT OF GENERAL STORE IN RGUKT, NIT CAMPUS-2, RGUKT ONGOLE CAMPUS (SSN ENGINEERING COLLEGE) YENDLURU DONKA VILLAGE, SANTHANUTALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P- 523 225. 2. KAMJULA CHANDRA KUMARI,, W/O K.V. RAMI REDDY, AGED 55 YEARS. MANAGER OF GENERAL STORE IN RGUKT, HIT CAMPUS-2, RGUKT ONGOLE CAMPUS (SSN ENGINEERING COLLEGE), YENDLURU DONKA VILLAGE, SANTHANUTALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P- 523 225. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT, OF HIGHER EDUCATION SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DIRECTOR, RGUKT ONGOLE CAMPUS (SSN ENGINEERING COLLEGE), YENDLURU DONKA VILLAGE, SANTHA NUTALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P- 523 225 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF KNOWLEDGE TECHNOLOGIES NUZIVID CAMPUS, NUZIVID, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN. 521202. SRK, J WP No.15597 of 2025 2 4. THE REGISTRAR, RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF KNOWLEDGE TECHNOLOGIES, NUZIVID CAMPUS, NUZIVID, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN. 521202. ...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 topleased to issue a Writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the dispossession notice, dated 16-06- 2024 issued by 2nd respondent against the 1st petitioner and received on 19-06-2025 by him to vacate the petitioners from the premises of General Stores in HIT Campus-2 RGUKT in Yendluru donka village, Santhanutalpadu Mandal, Prakasam district within 7 days and to declare the action of the respondents herein in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the General stores and in trying to dispossess them from the General stores without following procedure established by law, as illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction and contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural justice and also Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also and to set aside the said notice and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the General Stores and not to dispossess them from their General Stores and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the SRK, J WP No.15597 of 2025 3 petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondent authorities to suspend the dispossession notice, dated 16-06-2024 issued by 2 respondent against the 1st petitioner and received on 19-06-2025 by him to vacate the petitioners from the premises of General Stores in HIT Campus-2, RGUKT in Yendluru donka village, Santhanutalpadu Mandal, Prakasam district within 7 days and consequently direct the respondents to consider the reply/ objections dt. 21-05-2025 of 1st petitioner to respondents, not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and not to dispossess them from their General Store, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 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 prayed before the Hon’ble Court to vacate the interim stay passed in lA.No. 1 of 2025 dated 04.07.2025 in respect of WP.No. 15597 of 2025 along with consequential orders passed on 08.07.2025 and 16.07.2025 in the above WP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G JAGADEESWAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 2. SIVA KUMAR M (SC FOR RGUKT) 3. RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM SRK, J WP No.15597 of 2025 4 The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to declare the dispossession notice dated 16.06.2024 issued by 2nd respondent against 1st petitioner and received on 19.06.2025 by him to vacate from the premises of General Stores in IIT Campus-2 RGUKT in Yendluru donka village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District within 7 days and to declare the action of the respondents herein in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners of the General stores and in trying to dispossess them from the General stores without following procedure established by law as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Case of petitioners is that originally, SSN Educational Society was established in the year 1990 for Intermediate and Engineering & Technological Education. 1st petitioner is one of the Directors, and 2nd petitioner is the Treasurer, of the society. Since there have been no admissions in the college for the last many years, the Society had resolved to lease out the buildings to Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge & Technology (RGUKT) IIIT of Andhra Pradesh Government. An agreement to this effect was entered on 26.08.2019 between the Director, IIIT, RGUKT and the Chairman, SSN Educational Society for letting out shop SRK, J WP No.15597 of 2025 5 on a monthly rental basis facilitating hostel, catering and dining for students in Ongole campus. With prior permission of erstwhile Director of RGUKT, during February, 2021, the petitioners constructed a big shop for General stores in a vacant place in IIIT Campus-2 by borrowing loans and started running the General stores to the utmost satisfaction of students. While things stood thus, 2nd respondent sent a dispossession notice dated 16.06.2024 which was received by 1st petitioner on 19.06.2025 informing that the IIIT institute is in the process of reorganizing and streamlining the operation and allocation of service providers, operating canteens, general stores and similar facilities in RGUKT Ongole campus, and in view of the same, the petitioners were asked to vacate the premises within seven days from the date of the said notice, by clearing pending rents or dues before vacating, and to hand over the premises in usable condition to the IIIT administrative authorities concerned. 3. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit stating that there is no official contract agreement entered between RGUKT Ongole campus, the Secretary, SSN college and the petitioners to continue them in SSN campus to run the stores etc. SRK, J WP No.15597 of 2025 6 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned senior counsel Sri O.Manohar Reddy, appearing for learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that personal funds of the petitioners were utilized for construction of shop and for furniture, etc. and for maintenance, and that though the impugned notice though is stated to be dated 16.6.2024, it was received by the petitioners on 19.6.2025. 6. On the other hand, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the learned counsel for the respondents submits that RGUKT is in the process of reorganizing and streamlining the operation and allocation of service providers, operating canteens, general stores and similar facilities in its campus, and pursuant to the same, the petitioners were asked to vacate the subject premises by issuing the impugned notice. He further submitted that if the petitioners have any grievance with regard to the same, they have to work out the same before appropriate forum, but not approaching this Court by way of a Writ Petition. Hence, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. SRK, J WP No.15597 of 2025 7 In support of his contention, learned senior counsel relied on a decision in Roshina T.V. Abdul Azeez K.T. & others, wherein it is held thus : (paragraph 14) “It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal, are available. This Court has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. (See Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria (1992) 4 SCC 61 & Dwaraka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal (2003) 6 SCC 230).” 7. Admittedly, an agreement was entered into, on 26.8.2019 between the Director, IIIT, RGUKT and the Chairman, SSN Educational Society, for letting out shop on a monthly rental basis SRK, J WP No.15597 of 2025 8 facilitating home work, hostel, catering and dining for students in IIIT Ongole campus. On the ground that the institute is in the process of reorganizing and streamlining the operation and allocation of service providers, operating canteens, general stores and similar facilities in RGUKT Ongole campus, the impugned notice dated 16.6.2024 was issued to the petitioners to vacate the subject premises within 7 days. According to the petitioners, they received the notice on 19.6.2025. On 04.07.2025, this Court passed an Order in the present Writ Petition, directing all the parties to maintain status quo obtaining as on that day, and the said order is being extended from time to time. 8. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 that a Writ Petition is not maintainable for the relief sought, and if the petitioners have any grievance in regard to the agreement entered into, with respondents 2 to 4, the petitioners have to avail appropriate remedies available to them under law. There cannot be any dispute that for settlement of disputes relating to property rights between two private persons, a regular suit is the appropriate remedy, and in such a case, a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable, as the same is not SRK, J WP No.15597 of 2025 9 intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person. 9. However, learned counsel appearing for petitioners undertakes to the extent that petitioners would vacate the premises by 31.01.2026. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without going into merits of the case, petitioners herein are directed to vacate the premises by 31.01.2026. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J. Date: 31.12.2025 sj SRK, J WP No.15597 of 2025 10 78 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Writ Petition No.15597 of 2025 Date:31.12.2025 sj