APHC010189872026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 9525 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-11 [3446] Yagnamurthy Bala Subrahmanyam ...Petitioner Vs. High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Satheesh Kumar Eerla Advocate for Respondents: - CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 9th April, 2026. P C : The petitioner challenges the notice dated 06.04.2026, by virtue of which the canteen being run on the premises of the District Court Complex, Nellore, has been directed by the Principal District Judge, Nellore District, to be vacated within 48 hours. 2. The petitioner had been permitted to run the canteen based upon the terms and conditions agreed to between the parties in terms of the License deed dated 01.12.2025. 3. According to the License deed, it was agreed that if the licensee did not maintain the canteen properly or if a disturbance was caused to the Court 2 HCJ & RRRJ WP_9525_2026 proceedings and if there was any chance given to create a nuisance by giving shelter to the miscreants in and around the canteen premises, the Principal District Judge, Nellore, would be at liberty to take necessary action for eviction of the canteen holder without any prior notice. 4. It appears that the members of the Bar as also the President of the Bar Association, Nellore, made representations to the Principal District Judge, Nellore, complaining about the quality of the food items which were being supplied in the canteen. 5. By virtue of the notice dated 05.01.2026, the Principal District Judge, Nellore, issued a caution notice to the petitioner, cautioning him to rectify the errors in the functioning of the canteen as per the terms and conditions, failing which a termination notice would be issued. 6. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the receipt of the caution notice, necessary steps were indeed taken by the petitioner to improve the conditions existing in the canteen with regard to the quality of food, etc. It is stated that the impugned order was issued, which is claimed as a notice, and in fact directs the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question without affording the petitioner any opportunity of being heard. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Admittedly, as per the terms and conditions of the license deed entered into between the Principal District Judge and the petitioner, the license was 3 HCJ & RRRJ WP_9525_2026 liable to be terminated even without any prior notice in case the licensee did not maintain the canteen properly or for any other reason otherwise mentioned in the said deed. 9. Since the issue at hand pertains to the running of the canteen, which would adversely affect the health of the litigants and members of the Bar, as also the Officers of the District Judiciary at Nellore, on account of the unhygienic and poor quality of eatables being served thereat, in the facts and circumstances, we do not think that there was any need for the Principal District Judge to afford any further opportunity, as the final notice/order was in fact preceded by a caution notice much in advance issued in the month of January, 2026. 10. Be that as it may, we do not find any merit in the present Writ Petition which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. SSN