IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 10963 of 2008 Between: Potnuru Kameswaramma W/o Harinadha Rao R/o D. No. 24-110, Indranagar, Narasannapet, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Village Gram panchayat of Narasannapeta, rep by its Executive Officer, Narasannapeta Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District 2 The Mandal Praja Parishad, Narasannapeta rep by its Mandal Development Officer, Narasannapeta Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned notice dt 12-05-2008 in Rekha No. 135/05-B in spite of the Judgments and decrees dt 30-11-1994 passed in O.S. Nos. 126/90 and 127/90 by the Court of the Addl. Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, and the construction permission and sanction dt 15- 06-2005 granted by the 1st respondent D. dis No. 165/05 and after the construction of the building in the petition schedule property, is mala fide highly unjust improper and to contrary to law; and consequently to direct the respondents not to take any further action consequently to the impugned notice dated 12-5-2008 and to grant such other or further reliefs which the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to deem fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. D.RAMALINGA SWAMY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. M.PRABHAKAR RAO The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 10963 of 2008 ORDER : The petitioner herein claims to be the owner of the land measuring about 1717 sq. yards situated within the limits of Narasannapet Gram Panchayat having purchased the same under a Registered Sale Deed, dated 30.04.2005. It is not in dispute that on a request made by the petitioner the 1st respondent Gram Panchayat vide proceedings dated 15.06.2005 granted sanction for construction of a shopping complex of 10 shop-rooms and also approved the plan. The petitioner states that pursuant thereto she has already completed the construction of shopping complex. While so, the 1st respondent issued impugned notice dated 12.5.2008 calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why the Building Sanction granted on 15.6.2005 should not be cancelled alleging that the plans were got approved and the sanction was obtained suppressing the fact that the land in question forms part of Gramakantham poramboke. The said notice is assailed in the present writ petition contending that the allegations made in the impugned notice are absolutely false and without any basis and that the proposed cancellation of sanction granted in the year 2005 is ex facie illegal and contrary to law. It is relevant to note that the impugned notice is only a show-cause notice and as on today it cannot be said that there is any order adverse to the interest of the petitioner. Therefore, it is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to express any opinion at this stage as to the correctness of the allegations made in the impugned notice. The law is well-settled that a show-cause notice issued by an authority exercising power under a statute cannot be interfered unless the notice is shown to have been issued without authority of law. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not ordinarily interfere at the stage of show-cause notice inasmuch as the show-cause notice is nothing but affording an opportunity to the party concerned to explain the irregularities alleged. Hence, the Writ Petition is premature and cannot be entertained. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner’s explanation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioner is also granted liberty to submit a further explanation raising all the objections including the grounds that are raised in the present writ petition within two weeks from today. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 10.06.2008 gbs Note:- CC in 3 days. (B/O) gbs