IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 5440 of 2009 Between: Mr. V. Ravi Kanth S/o. Rama Chandraiah R/o. Plot No.56, Kirlampudi Layout, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) Rep. by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Assistant City Planner East Zone Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents in trying to demolish the small huts and temporary structures in the premises of Everest Enterprises Restaurant situated in Sy.No.9/2A China Waltair, Visakhapatnam, without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and apart from being violative of principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKATA RANGADAS KANURI Counsel for the Respondents No.: MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that he took 3800 sq. yards of site in Sy. No.9/2A, situated in Chinna Waltair, Visakhapatnam on lease from one T.Mahidhar Chowdary, under registered Lease Deed dated 01.06.2007 and established a restaurant therein after obtaining permission from the 1st respondent-Corporation and doing business in it. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that on 14.3.2009, the 2nd respondent and his men, without issuing any notice and without following due process of law, tried to demolish his restaurant. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation, on instructions, submitted that the respondents will follow the due process of law before taking any action to demolish the restaurant of the petitioner Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Municipality, and having regard to the stand taken by the respondents, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions. “The respondents, before taking any action to demolish the restaurant of the petitioner, shall follow the due process of law, and until then status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 18th March, 2009 bcj