HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.24663 of 2010 Date : 1-10-2010 Between : K.Nagaraju s/o.Ramma Rao .. Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri K.S. Murthy Counsel for respondent No.1 : Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.2 : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.3 : The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.24663 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside notice dated 25-9-2010. I have heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner pleaded that he was granted licence for running a petty shop on the land belonging to respondent No.3-Gram Panchayath in the year 1989. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that the said licence is being extended from time to time and that the extension last made was for the period 2009-10. By the impugned notice, the petitioner is called upon to vacate the place by removing his shop. Sri K.S. Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the place at which his client is running the small business is unobjectionable and the same does not cause any public inconvenience. He has further submitted that no notice was given to the petitioner before issuing the impugned order. From the material on record, it appears that the petitioner is permitted to run the petty business from the year 1989 onwards. If respondent No.3 felt that the petitioner’s continuance at the place in question causes inconvenience to public, it ought to have given a notice to the petitioner before passing the ordering for his eviction. This having not been done, I am inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order shall be treated as a notice to the petitioner who is permitted to submit his objections/explanation within a period of two weeks. On such objections/explanation being filed, respondent No.3 shall consider the same and pass appropriate order. Till passing of such an order, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the place in dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the present place at which the petitioner is carrying on his business is found objectionable, respondent No.3 may be directed to consider allotment of alternative place to the petitioner to carry on his business. In my opinion, the petitioner shall make such a request in the objections/explanation to be submitted by him. If such a request is made, respondent No.3 shall consider the same and pass appropriate order. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.31564/2010 is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 1-10-2010 Note: Communicate operative portion of the order by wire at party’s costs. AM