JAVERL S H Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court's extraordinary jurisdiction is invoked by the petitioner in a matter which is basically and essentially a civil dispute between the petitioner and Respondents 3 and 5. The suit already filed by the petitioner in O.S. No.37 of 1995 on the file of the learned V Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is still pending and therefore, whatever observations that are made while disposing of this writ petition should be treated as meant for disposal of this writ petition alone and such observations, if any, shall have no bearing what so ever upon the pending civil proceedings between the parties. It may not be really necessary to notice all the facts except such facts which are necessary for disposal of mis writ petition.

(2.) Even according to the petitioner, the writ petition is filed challenging the arbitrary and illegal action on the part of respondents 3 and 4 and the conduct of Respondent No.4 herein. It is alleged that the conduct of the respondent Hotel is in gross violation of judicial order and this affects and violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by Arts.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Though the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Home is made as a party to this writ petition, nothing is mentioned against the Government and the affidavit filed by the petitioner himself does not disclose any cause against the 1st respondent. It is rather difficult to appreciate as to why the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Police is also impleaded as one of the respondents in the writ petition. All the allegations levelled and averments made and the contentions raised are against the respondents 3 to 5.

(3.) The writ petitioner filed O.S. No.37 of 1995 on the file of the V Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for a declaration declaring that the 3rd respondent herein is not entitled to adjust the advance payment of Rs.1 lakh made by the petitioner towards the dues payable by H.E.H. the Nizam's Private Estate, and to grant a decree of mandatory injunction permitting the plaintiff, his family members to use and have access to Room No.102 in Gateway Hotel, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad (3rd respondent) till the advance amount of Rs. 1 lakh paid by the petitioner is adjusted till the date when the petitioner is given possession of Room No.102 in the said Hotel and in the alternative to pass a decree for refund of advance payment of Rs.1 lakh to the petitioner along with future interest at 24% p.a. from the date of the suit till realisation and permit the petitioner to remove the belongings lying in Room No.102 in the said Hotel. Such a simple suit led to filing of many interlocutory applications between the parties.