HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.1379 of 2009 Date: July 27, 2010 Between: Sri Dhanalakshmi Poultry Farm, Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, represented by its Proprietor Paruchuri- Krishna Rao, S/o.Subrahmanyam, aged 55 years, R/o.Poranki … Petitioner And The Grampanchayat, Poranki, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, represented by its Secretary, and two others … Respondents Order: Though miscellaneous petitions are listed, at the request of learned counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is disposed of after hearing them. This writ petition is filed questioning notices dated 23-01-2009 and 24-01-2009 issued in proceedings ROC No.222/2008 and 48/2009, by the first respondent- Grampanchayat, Poranki, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, and the Tahsildar, Penamaluru Mandal, respectively. Petitioner claims to be the proprietor of a poultry farm established in Poranki Village, which he has been running from about ten years. While things stood thus, notice dated 23-01-2009 is issued to him by the first respondent directing him to remove the poultry sheds within thirty days, referring to a complaint made by the residents of B.J. Nagar stating that foul smell is emanating therefrom. On similar lines is also the notice dated 24-01- 2009 issued by the second respondent-Tahsildar, wherein it is stated that failing to remove the poultry farm action will be taken against the petitioner under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The impugned notices are mainly questioned on the ground that the poultry farm has been setup by the petitioner at a distance of about 3 kms. from the village and hence there is no veracity in the complaint made by the residents of B.J. Nagar. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents, without conducting any enquiry, only basing on the aforesaid representation, straightway directed to remove the poultry farm. It is stated that a copy of the said representation, which was made basis for issuance of impugned notices, has not been furnished to the petitioner and no inspection has been made in the premises of the poultry farm. A counter-affidavit is filed by the first respondent- Panchayat Secretary, Poranki Village, on behalf of the respondents. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner is running the poultry farm without obtaining licence from the Grampanchayat and also from the authorities of Pollution Control Board and Health Department. It is stated that poultry sheds raised by the petitioner are located at a distance of only 100 meters from dalithawada, namely B.J. Nagar and the allegation of the petitioner that there are about 10 other poultry sheds in the locality is not correct. It is further stated that after inspecting the poultry farm of the petitioner, authorities of Pollution Control Board directed to take appropriate action against the poultry farm of the petitioner vide letter dated 16-07-2009; in that view of the matter, impugned notices have been issued asking the petitioner to remove the poultry farm. The power of the respondents, as per the A.P. Panchayatraj Act, for improving sanitary conditions and to issue necessary directions, are traceable to Section 94 of A.P. Panchayatraj Act, 1994. A perusal of Section 94(1) of the Act would make it clear that to improve the sanitary conditions of any area within the village, the executive authority is required to issue written notice before issuing directions for removal of any structure. Though it is the specific case of the petitioner that no opportunity is given to him before issuance of impugned notices, the same is not controverted by the respondents in the counter- affidavit. A perusal of the impugned notices also would not indicate issuance of any prior notice. Further, although it is stated in the counter affidavit that the poultry farm of the petitioner is situated nearby B.J. Nagar dalithwada and the impugned notices have been issued basing on the complaint of the residents of that locality and also the directions issued by the authorities of Pollution Control Board, but, as much as no prior opportunity is given to the petitioner before recording any finding against him, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned notices. On the short ground that no prior opportunity was given to the petitioner before issuance of impugned notices, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, notices dated 23-01-2009 and 24-01-2009 issued in proceedings ROC No.222/2008 and 48/2009, by the first respondent- Grampanchayat, Poranki, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, and the Tahsildar, Penamaluru Mandal, respectively are set-aside. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is still running the poultry farm in question without obtaining licence from the authorities concerned, this order will not preclude the respondents to issue him notice afresh, calling for his explanation, consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) July 27, 2010 MRR