IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No :15072 of 2010 Between: R.V.S.R.K Prasad, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND Greater Viskhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, rep by its Commissioner and another. .....RESPONDENTs The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No :15072 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the 1st respondent- Corporation in R.C.No.3072/2010/ACP-II, dated 9.6.2010, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner herein was granted building permission vide proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 20.2.2010 in respect of the premises bearing No.49-54-15/3 in Sy.No.2P of Allipuram Ward, B.S.Layout, Ward No.11, Visakhapatnam. While so, a show cause notice dated 20.3.2010 was issued by the 1st respondent alleging that the petitioner had obtained the building permission suppressing the injunction orders passed by the Court of the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge in O.S.Nos.1661 & 5791 of 2008 and calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the permit dated 20.2.2010 should not be cancelled. The petitioner states that he submitted a detailed explanation dated 17.5.2010 to the 1st respondent. However, without considering the same, the impugned order dated 9.6.2010 came to be passed revoking the building permit dated 20.2.2010 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to submit his explanation. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Viskahapatnam Municipal Corporation appearing for the 1st respondent. The material placed before this Court shows that the petitioner’s explanation dated 17.5.2010 was received in the office of the 1st respondent on 17.5.2010. The material also shows that the petitioner made a further representation on 12.6.2010. Apparently the impugned order was passed under Section 450 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 without taking into consideration the petitioner’s explanation. Hence the impugned order, being in violation of the principles of natural justice, is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 9.6.2010 is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner’s explanation dated 17.5.2010 and then pass appropriate orders afresh, after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ Justice G.Rohini Date:02.7.2010 mrb