HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.27156 of 2010 Date : 29-12-2011 Between: V. Upender .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Dammalapati Srinivas Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside proceeding in Cr.No.B1/704/2010/ESS, dated 23-10-2010, whereby on a complaint given by one N. Ramesh, respondent No.3 has directed the petitioner to select an alternative premises within the notified ward and shift his A-4 shop from the existing premises within 15 days of receipt of the said proceeding, on the ground that the A-4 shop being run by him is located at a distance of 95.70 and 65.5 meters, respectively, from the second gate of the A.P.S.R.T.C. and the Suraksha Children Hospitals, at Tarnaka. Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is running the A-4 shop in the premises in dispute since the year 2008 and that no one has raised any grievance against running the same in the said premises. The learned counsel further submitted that while the Suraksha Children’s Hospital at Tarnaka came into existence more than two months after the grant of licence to the petitioner, the distance of 95.70 meters between the A.P.S.R.T.C. Hospital at Tarnaka and to the petitioner’s premises is from the second gate which is meant only for the residents of the staff quarters to reach their quarters situated within the hospital premises. The learned counsel further submitted that before issuing the impugned proceedings, no prior notice was issued to the petitioner thereby denying him an opportunity of explaining his case with reference to the actual distances between his A-4 shop, the A.P.S.R.T.C. and the Suraksha Children Hospitals at Tarnaka. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise has not disputed that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner before issuing the impugned proceeding. Even though the impugned proceeding is styled as a notice, in reality, it is an order directing the petitioner to shift his A-4 shop to a different premises. Such a direction ought not to have been issued by respondent No.3 unless the petitioner was put on notice and given an opportunity of explaining his case. On this short ground, the impugned proceeding is set-aside. Liberty is however given to respondent No.3 to issue a fresh notice and take appropriate decision after giving the petitioner a notice and an opportunity of being heard. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, WPMP No.34697/2010 and WVMP No.2349/2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 29-12-2011 AM