The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.26821 of 2011 Date: 23.09.2011 Between: 1.T.Manohar Reddy and 45 others ..... Petitioners AND 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri D.Seshadri Naidu Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Municipal Administration Counsel for respondent No.2: Mr.C.Venkat Yadav, SC for Municipality The Court made the following: Order: The petitioners, who claim to be in possession of vacant space by the side of Tirumala bypass road over a drainage canal and running petty businesses, filed this Writ Petition with the grievance that, without following due process of law, respondent No.2 is seeking to evict them from the places in their occupation. The petitioners pleaded that, while no notice has been issued by respondent No.2- Tirupati Municipal Corporation (for short ‘Corporation’), respondent No.3- Assistant Divisional Engineer, APSPDCL, Tirupati, issued notice, dated 09-09-2011, calling upon the petitioners to showcause as to why their power supply shall not be disconnected, to which they are stated to have submitted explanations. The petitioners asserted that they cannot be unceremoniously evicted from the places in their occupation in view of their longstanding possession. Sri C.Venkat Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2- Corporation has, candidly, conceded that, so far, no notice has been issued to the petitioners by respondent No.2. It appears that the petitioners are in longstanding possession of the vacant space on the road margin. Having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sodan Singh and others vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and others[1], this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners cannot be unceremoniously evicted unless they are given an opportunity by way of a showcause notice. On this short ground, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 not to evict the petitioners from the places in their occupation without issuing showcause notices to them and considering the objections, if any, filed by them. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.33116 of 2011, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 23rd September, 2011 LUR [1] (1989) 4 Supreme Court Cases 155