HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.23881 of 2010 Date : 27-9-2010 Between: Karri Subba Reddy s/o.Satti Reddy .. Petitioner And The Principal Secretary to the Government of A.P., Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri E.V.S.S. Acharyulu Counsel for respondents : The Court made the following order : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.23881 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner, who is claiming to be running a Pan shop for several years, assailed notice dated 16-9-2010, issued by respondent No.2, under Section 107 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1994 (for short “the Act”) whereby he has called upon the petitioner to vacate the place by removing the stall from the market area. I have heard Sri E.V.S.S. Acharyulu, leaned counsel for petitioner and perused the record. At the hearing, leaned counsel for petitioner submitted that though no formal permission has been granted by the Gram Panchayath, it has been receiving taxes apart from applications from the petitioner for grant of permission to carry on the business in Pan Shop. He further submitted that having regard to the long standing possession of 45 years, there was no justification for respondent No.2 to issue the impugned notice without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned notice of eviction shows that the same was not preceded by a notice. The material filed by the petitioner shows that taxes are being collected from him since a long time. Though Section 107 of the Act does not expressly provide for a notice, fairness and principles of natural justice require that the petitioner should have been put on notice before passing the order of eviction. In this view of the matter, I find it appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to treat the impugned notice as show cause notice. As the petitioner claimed that he has already submitted his explanation, the same shall be considered by respondent No.2 and he shall pass appropriate order thereon. Till passing of such order, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the premises in question. In the event respondent No.2 comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable for eviction, he shall be given reasonable time for vacating the premises. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.30557/2010 is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date : 27-9-2010 AM