IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3874 of 2004 Between: Smt. P. Laxmamma, w/o Late Papaiah Naidu, Gudur, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Gudur Municipality, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT 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 a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, direction, order or orders declaring the action of the respondent in issuing the notice dated 28-2-2004 as wholly arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and void Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.P.CHANDRAMOULI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3874 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed, seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent-Municipality, in issuing the impugned notice, dated 28.02.2004, threatening to demolish the constructions made by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the house bearing D.No.23 to an extent of 63 sq. yards situated at Kummara Veedhi of Gudur Town in Nellore District. The petitioner states that as the way to his house was only through a canal, he sought permission of the respondent-Municipality to construct a cause-way over the said canal without causing any obstruction to the flow of drain as well as to the public. He states that no written permission was accorded from the respondent-Municipality, but with the oral permission of the then Commissioner and the Ward Counselor, he started constructing cause-way by raising concrete pillars and completed the centering work for slab, and at that stage, the respondent-Municipality issued the impugned notice, dated 28.02.2004, directing the petitioner to remove the said construction, or otherwise, threatened to demolish the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-Municipality has not taken any action on his representation, dated 28.02.2004, seeking permission to construct the cause-way over the canal, but issued the impugned notice without any show cause notice. While admitting the writ petition, this Court, by an order dated 04.03.2004 passed in WPMP.No.5119 of 2004, directed the petitioner not to make any further constructions over the drain and the same was extended until further orders on 16.03.2004. Though the writ petition is of the year 2004, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondent-Municipality, denying the allegations made by the petitioner. Heard Sri M.P.Chandramouli, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Municipality and perused the record. Admittedly, no prior notice was issued to the petitioner before issuing the impugned notice, directing to remove the constructions made by him on Penneri Canal (Chinnakummari street). It is specifically stated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner that as there is no access to reach his house, he made a representation, dated 28.02.2004, seeking permission for construction of a cause- way, which is pending with the respondent-Municipality. As the impugned notice was not preceded by any show cause notice, and since the representation made by the petitioner is pending with the respondent-Municipality, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondent-Municipality to dispose of the representation, dated 28.02.2004, made by the petitioner. The petitioner shall also place a copy of the representation, dated 28.02.2004, before the respondent-Municipality within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and the respondent-Municipality is directed to pass appropriate orders on the said representation, in accordance with law, and communicate its decision to the petitioner. Pending disposal of the representation, no further action shall be taken by the respondent- Municipality pursuant to the impugned notice, dated 28.02.2004. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. R.SUBHASH REDDY,J Date:22.07.2009 usd