THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.3731 of 2010 DATED: 15.07.2010 Between: Nalamothu Sarat Chandra .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Hyderabad, and another. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the notice dated 02.02.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent- Secretary, Tanguturu Gram Panchayat, Prakasam District. Under the impugned notice, alleging that the petitioner encroached into the land belonging to Tanguturu Gram Panchayat, 2nd respondent directed the petitioner to remove those encroachments within three days of receipt of notice, besides payment of fine of Rs.200/-, failing which the Gram Panchayat would remove the encroachments without any prior intimation. The petitioner states that he has not made any encroachments, as alleged in the impugned notice, and he is doing business in the rented premises and that the impugned notice, which is in the nature of final order, was issued without giving him any notice and without affording him an opportunity to submit his explanation. This Court, on 18.02.2010, while issuing notice before admission, granted interim stay of dispossession of the petitioner pursuant to the impugned proceedings, for a limited period, subject to payment of fine imposed by the 2nd respondent, and the said order was extended from time to time. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Gram Panchayat. Though the impugned order reads as notice, the same is in the nature of final order, directing the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachments and pay the fine amount. Admittedly, no notice of any kind was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Principles of natural justice require that, when an order affecting the rights of a party is passed, notice calling upon the explanation of that party should be given and an opportunity of hearing should be provided. In the instant case, no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation and no opportunity of hearing was provided to him before issuing the impugned notice. Since the impugned notice has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, it is liable to be set aside. However, since it is the grievance of the petitioner that the impugned notice is not preceded by a show-cause notice, it is directed that the impugned notice shall be treated as a show-cause notice issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation, enclosing the relevant documents in support of his case, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such explanation is submitted by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate speaking orders in accordance with law. Till such time, interim order of stay shall continue. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 15th July, 2010 IBL