APHC010057312025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3318/2025 Between: Saquib Kamran Muhammed, ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SYED KHADER MASTAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 2. SHAIK KHAJA BASHA The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.3318 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “….to issue a writ or writs or order or orders one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare action of the 4th Respondent in threatening Petitioner not open shop No.D-2 Ground floor of Mohammadia Wakf Complex, Kurnool despite license agreement dated 22/06/2024 is in force at the instance of the 3rd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents not interfere with possession business activity of the Petitioner pertaining to shop No.D-2 Ground floor of Mohammadia Wakf Complex, Kurnool without following due process of law and be pleased to pass such other order or orders …..” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is an existing lessee in respect of Shop No.D-2, Ground floor of Mohammadia Wakf Complex, Kurnool since 2022. After completion of license period in the month of May,2024, the petitioner’s license was extended by way of license agreement dated 15.06.2022 for a period of 11 months. Pursuant to which, the petitioner is entitled to continue as lessee in respect of the subject shop up to 15.05.2025. If that is so, the respondents are trying to evict/ dispossess the petitioner from the subject shop which is illegal and high handed action on part of the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in compliance of Clause (4) of the license agreement dated 15.06.2022, the petitioner is carrying out renovation in respect of the subject shop after obtaining due permission from respondent No.4 on 25.01.2024 pursuant to the representation dated 25.01.2024. Therefore, in compliance of clause 4 of the said agreement, the petitioner has been carrying renovation works with due permission only. He further submits that once the permission granted by respondent No.4 is in force, other respondents can neither interrupt nor dispossess the petitioner from the subject shop. Without considering the same, respondents are threatening the petitioner not to open the subject shop and are trying to evict the petitioner from the subject shop is illegal, arbitrary and high handed action on part of the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed the present writ petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner did not file any piece of paper regarding permission said to have been granted by respondent No.2, who is the competent authority for granting such permission. He further submits that in the absence of any express permission on part of respondent No.2, the petitioner cannot be presumed that he was granted permission and he is not entitled to carry any alterations/ admitted renovations in respect of the subject shop. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition can be disposed of, directing the petitioner to submit an application seeking permission to proceed with the renovation works with regard to the subject shop to respondent No.2 instead of respondent No.4, who is the competent authority as per clause 4 of the license agreement within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such application, respondent No.2 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four (04) weeks, thereafter. In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject shop of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 12.02.2025 BSP 17 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.3318 of 2025 12.02.2025 BSP