IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 27331 of 2008 Between: G.V.S. Rama Rao S/o. Venkata Subrahmanya Raghurama Rao R/o. D.No.11/974, Jagannadhapuram, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND Machilipatnam Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Machilipatnam, Krishna 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 issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the authorities of the respondent municipality in threatening to demolish the shop of the petitioner bearing D.No.11/974 situated at Jagannadhapuram, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent not to demolish the structures without following the due process of Law, and to grant such other relief or reliefs Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in threatening to demolish the petitioner’s shop bearing D.No.11/974, without issuing any notice, as arbitrary and illegal. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that the respondent, without issuing any notice and without following the due process under law and paying any compensation, took measurements of his Shop bearing D.No.11/974 situated at Jagannadhapuram, Machilipatnam, Krishna District on 10.12.2008, and threatened to demolish it for the purpose of road widening. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The principles of natural justice demand that before any action is initiated by the public authorities against a private individual, which results in civil consequences, a notice calling for the explanation to the individual concerned has to be issued, and after considering the explanation, appropriate orders should be passed, and then, action in accordance with the said decision has to be taken. Inasmuch as it is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent threatened to demolish his Shop by taking measurements without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The respondent-Commissioner, Machilipatnam Municipality is directed to follow the due procedure prescribed under law wherein a notice calling for the explanation of the petitioner shall be issued and after considering the explanation that may be submitted by the petitioner, pass appropriate orders and take action in accordance therewith. It is made clear that unless and until the respondent-Commissioner issues notice to the petitioner and considers his explanation/objection and pass appropriate orders, he shall not resort to any demolition of petitioner’s Shop bearing D.No.11/974 situated at Jagannadhapuram, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.” In terms of the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ 16.12.2008 bcj