THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22484 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of premises, bearing No.7-3-23 of Nirmal Town of Adilabad District. A comprehensive master plan was prepared for the Town and the same was approved by the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.44, Municipal Administration, dated 19.01.1990. The petitioner states that a Road Development Plan was prepared in the year 1995, contrary to the master plan and changing the alignments. The petitioner intended to construct a building in the site. It is abutting the road. He submitted an application to the municipality. After directing that certain set backs be left, the permission was accorded to the petitioner by proceedings, dated 18.08.1999. The petitioner states that he has commenced the construction strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan and after handing over the portion affected for road widening. The first respondent issued notice, dated 01.09.1999, to the petitioner requiring him to stop the construction. It was stated that through the resolution, dated 01.09.1999, the Municipal Council, Nirmal, resolved to cancel the building permission issued to the petitioner. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Heard Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri V.Hari Haran, learned counsel for respondent No.4. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was accorded permission by the municipality to construct a building. The petitioner states that the permission was accorded by insisting that he should leave about 100 square metres of land at free of cost for future widening of the road. In case the permission accorded to the petitioner suffers from any illegality or it otherwise warrants cancellation, the Municipality is under obligation to issue notice to the petitioner to explain as to why the permission should be not cancelled, indicating the reasons therefor. The Municipal Council, however, straight away passed a resolution on 01.09.1999, cancelling the building permission issued to the petitioner. The impugned notice has only communicated that resolution to the petitioner and required him not to proceed with the construction. On the face of it, the impugned notice is violative of principles of natural justice. A permission, which is validly sanctioned under the relevant provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act, cannot be cancelled without issuing notice to the petitioner. On this short ground, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned notice, dated 01.09.1999, is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:10.12.2008 GJ