Diwakar vs The Deputy Commissioner

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

(i) Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned reply notice dated 31-10-2013 vide Annexure-F, No. REV/END/CR-16/2011-12/238

issued by the 3rd respondent.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to handover the possession of the shop providing all basic amenities of electricity, water

and road connectivity also directing the respondent for not forfeiting the deposit amount and allow the petitioner to carry out his business at the

premises allotted at the temple.

Annexure-F is nothing but reply made by the Tahsildar, Bidar, dated 31-10-2013 to the notice sent by the petitioner. The writ does not lie for

quashing the reply to the notice. Reply is not an order at all. Notice and reply to the notice are correspondences. Thus, the first prayer of the

petitioner cannot be granted in any stretch of imagination. 2. So far as second prayer is concerned, the respondents have already calcified that the

possession is handed over to the petitioner at the time of allotment of the shop in favour of the petitioner. If the petitioner has not received the

possession, it is open for him to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief. Writ petition is not the remedy to decide the disputed questions of

facts.

With these observations, petition stands dismissed.