IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18481 of 2009 Between: M/s. Active Power Corporation Private Ltd., Hyderabad. … Petitioner And The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation & CAD (PW Reforms) Department, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Dammalapati Srinivas Counsel for the respondents: Sri N. Sridhar Reddy Spl. Government Pleader for the Advocate General This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18481 of 2009 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside G.O.Rt.No.670, dated 29.08.2009, issued by respondent No.1. The petitioner was accorded permission for establishment of 2 x 700 KW Mini Hydel Power Generation Plant. On 10.07.2009, respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner to explain as to why the permission granted to it shall not be cancelled within two weeks from the date of receipt of the notice on the ground that the Government has decided to increase the flood diversion capacity of Budameru Diversion Channel to avoid future floods. It is the case of the petitioner that it has orally requested respondent No.2 for extension of time for submitting its objections. Even though no order, extending the time, was passed, it is an admitted position that time was extended. The petitioner has once again requested respondent No.2 for further extension of time by three weeks for submitting objections vide its telegram, dated 30.07.2009. The petitioner has not received any communication from respondent No.2 either rejecting or accepting its request. It is the further case of the petitioner that even before expiry of the said three weeks’ time, respondent No.2 has sent a report to respondent No.1 on 19.08.2009, on the basis of which respondent No.1 has issued the impugned G.O., on 29.08.2009. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents. Even though no order was passed by respondent No.1 within the three weeks’ time up to which the petitioner sought extension, the fact remains that respondent No.2 has submitted a report to respondent No.1 before expiry of the said three weeks’ time. The action proposed by the respondents involves cancellation of the permission granted to the petitioner for establishment and running of a Mini Hydel Power Plant. Therefore, the respondents ought to have been more circumspect in dealing with the petitioner and considering its request for extension of time. Non-communication of the response of respondent No.2 to the petitioner’s request for extension of time for submitting explanation has given scope for the petitioner to plead violation of principles of natural justice. Even though it would have been open to the petitioner to file its explanation on the expiry of three weeks’ time, as sought by it, notwithstanding the report submitted by respondent No.2 on 19.09.2009, the fact remains that the impugned G.O. was passed without considering the version of the petitioner. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the serious adverse consequences that may ensue, if the impugned G.O. is implemented, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to give the petitioner one more opportunity of putting forth its objections. The impugned G.O. is, therefore, set aside only on the short ground that the same was passed without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner is permitted to file its objections within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.1 shall consider the objections, if any filed by the petitioner and pass a fresh order. Till passing of such an order, status quo as on today shall be maintained. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.24176 of 2009 and WVMP.No.3782 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 10.08.2011 ES