THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3806 of 2011 Date:03.03.2011 Between: P. Nagaraja Reddy ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector, Chittoor and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: None appeared Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: None appeared Counsel for Respondent No.4: Sri M. Sudhir, standing counsl for APSCC The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in resorting to evict the petitioner by demolishing the shop situated near clock tower in Chandragiri Gram Panchayat, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor District, without passing an order on the petitioner’s explanation dated 14.12.2011 as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner and for respondent Nos.1 to 3. I have heard Sri S. Sudhir, learned standing counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the record. The petitioner is in occupation of a small site situated within the limits of Chandragiri Gram Panchayat. Complaining of threat of dispossession from the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11695 of 2002. By order dated 04.07.2007, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with the direction to the respondents therein not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the shop in question without taking recourse to due process of law. Purporting to follow the said order, respondent No.2 – Tahsildar, Chandragiri Mandal issued notice dated 03.02.2011 to the petitioner, wherein it is inter alia stated that the petitioner had initially set up a bunk on the Government poramboke land and that during the course of road widening, the said bunk was removed and that later, the petitioner has shifted the said bunk to the complex belonging to respondent No.4. Respondent No.2, therefore, called upon the petitioner to show cause within three days why the bunk shall not be removed. The petitioner was also asked to produce the permission, if any, granted by respondent No.4. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that in response to the said notice, he has submitted his explanation on 14.02.2011 and that without passing an order in pursuance of the show cause notice, respondent No.2 is threatening to remove the petitioner’s bunk. No counter-affidavits are filed on behalf of any of the respondents. From the facts pleaded by the petitioner, it is evident that respondent No.2 has issued a notice having regard to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11695 of 2002 and in response to the said notice, the petitioner has submitted his explanation. This writ petition is filed with the limited grievance that even before an appropriate order is passed by respondent No.2, attempts are being made for eviction of the petitioner. In the light of this grievance, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to pass an appropriate order on the show cause notice issued by him after considering the explanation of the petitioner. Appropriate action against the petitioner can be taken by respondent No.2 only after communicating such order passed by him to the petitioner. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.4712 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03rd March, 2011 GHN