APHC010068132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3576/2025 Between: Purini Prabhavathi and Others The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PANGULURU RACHANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3576/2025 Purini Prabhavathi and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): PANGULURU RACHANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] ...PETITIONER(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in insisting the petitioners to vacate from their wholesale vegetable shop Nos.46 and 56 situated at Sri Damodara Sanjevayya Vegetable Market, Ongole, Prakasam District as illegal irregular irrational without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with the petitioners said vegetable wholesale shops as well as business and pass ….” 02. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Sri A.S. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. 03. The case of the petitioners is that they are eking out their livelihood by selling vegetables. The 2nd respondent constructed the shops in the name and style as Sri Sri Damodara Sanjevayya Vegetable Market and the 2nd respondent allotted shops Nos.46 & 56 to the petitioners. The 2nd respondent vide Roc.No.853/07-A1 dated 26.11.2008 allotted shop No.46 in favor of the 1st petitioner and vide Roc.No.858/07-A1 dated 26.11.2010 allotted shop No.56 in favor of the 2nd respondent, on 03.02.2025 and 4.02.2025, they paid Rs.2,00,000/- each to the 2nd respondent. While the matter being so, the respondent No.2 came to their property and asked them to vacate the same without assigning any reasons and without following the procedure contemplated under law and if they are permitted to do so, the rights of the 3 petitioners would get affected, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioners 04. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 orally informed that when their officers have directed the petitioners to pay the arrears of Rs.8,00,000/- each without paying the said arrears they approached this Court. It is an admitted fact that no notice was given to the petitioners directing them to pay the said arrears nor directs them to vacate the said shops for non-payment of the arrears. 05. Perused the material available on record. 06. Taking into consideration the submissions of both the learned counsel, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage by passing the following order: “The respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners’ subject vegetable shop Nos.46 and 56 situated at Sri Damodara Sanjeevayya Vegetable Market, Ongole, Prakasham District without following due process of law” 07. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 11.02.2025 KKV 5 235 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3576/2025 Dated 11.02.2025 KKV 6