HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4031 of 2004 ORDER : Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri P.Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order, dated 16th January 2004, issued by the 2nd respondent-Assistant Medical Officer of Circle No.4 of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, and further orders dated 19th February 2004, by which, directions were issued for closure of the color graphics Unit, which is being run by the petitioner. 3. Referring to a complaint, dated 28th November 2003, made by the residents of the locality, where the petitioner's Unit is situated, the respondents have issued a show cause notice, dated 15th of December 2003, calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why action should not be taken to close his trade. On receipt of the same, petitioner has filed his explanation, dated 18th December 2003, which was received in the office of the respondents on 22nd of December 2003. Thereafter, without referring to the explanation submitted by the petitioner, he was asked to close his trade, through the impugned order, dated 16th January 2004. On similar lines, further orders are issued on 19th February 2004, for closure of the petitioner's Unit. Though it is stated in the orders that the printing press is to be closed, but it is submitted that the petitioner is not running the printing press, but he is only operating the color graphics Unit in the premises. 4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he is not creating any noise pollution by running his color graphics Unit, and the show cause notice, dated 15th of December 2003, was issued only at the instance of some persons of the locality due to their vindictive attitude towards him. Though the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the aforesaid show cause notice, the same has not been considered by the respondents before passing the impugned orders. 5. On the explanation, dated 18th December 2003, submitted by the petitioner, there is an endorsement of the office of the respondents in token of receipt of the same, on 22nd December 2003. Inspite of receiving such an explanation from the petitioner, it appears that the respondents have not considered the same before issuing the impugned Proceedings, dated 16th January 2004 and 19th February 2004. 6. Without going into the allegations levelled against the petitioner, as much as his representation is not at all considered, I deem it appropriate to quash the orders, dated 16th January 2004 and 19th February 2004, passed by the 2nd respondent, with a direction to the respondents to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders with reference to the show cause notice, dated 15th December 2003, issued in Proceedings No.5424/HS/C4/MCH/2003, after taking into consideration the explanation offered by the petitioner, dated 18th December 2003, and communicate the decision taken thereon, to the petitioner. 7. The petitioner shall also submit a copy of the show cause notice, dated 15th December 2003, and the copy of his explanation, dated 18th December 2003, along with a copy of this order, in the office of the respondents, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, so as to enable the respondents to take appropriate decision in the matter. 8. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 31st July 2009 ajr