HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W. P. No. 19300 of 2009 DATED: 11.09.2009 Between: Palaparthi Ramu And another ..... PETITIONERs AND 1. The Guntur Municipal Corpn. 2. Municipal Health Officer, Guntur Municipal Corpn. .....RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R:- The petitioners assert that they are running a lodge in the name and style “Sai Teja Residency” in the premises bearing D. No.12-28- 18 in Town Survey No.689 of Guntur. Their grievance is that on 01.09.2009, the 2nd respondent, without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity of being heard, came to his lodge, drove out the inmates of the lodge and put a lock and seal to its main doors alleging that the petitioners are not maintaining the bathroom and latrines neatly, and such action of the 2nd respondent, according to the petitioners, is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions under Sections 324 to 326 of the Municipal Corporation Act. The learned Standing Counsel for Guntur Municipal Corporation has contended that the petitioners are running their lodge “Sai Teja Residency” without any valid licence. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for Guntur Municipal Corporation appearing for the respondents. The contention of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent, without issuing any notice and without affording an opportunity of being heard, locked and seal the petitioner’s lodge cannot be accepted, because it is the specific case of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that the petitioners are running their lodge without valid licence, and since the petitioners are said to be running the lodge without valid permission, they are not entitled to seek any relief. Be that as it may, it is the statutory duty of the Municipal Corporation to inspect lodges and hotels located within its jurisdiction, and ascertain whether they are being maintained in good/hygienic condition or not, and that being so, no fault can be found with the action of the 2nd respondent in inspecting and putting lock to the door of the petitioner’s premises. Hence, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 11th September, 2009 bcj