IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11923 of 2010 Between: Smt.Kammula @ Kamili Seetha Mahalakshmi @ Seetha @ Seethamma ... PETITIONER a n d The Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur, West Godavari District and another … RESPONDENTS ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Smt.Kammula @ Kamili Seetha Mahalakshmi @ Seetha @ Seethamma with a prayer to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondents in issuing proceedings dated 27-04-2010 as arbitrary, capricious, illegal and contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution of India and mandate of Section 18 (i) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience). 2. The petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing door No.23-6-62, Yanamadurru Drain Bund, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. It is located within a distance of 200 meters from residential locality. A show cause notice dated 27-03-2010 came to be issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narasapur – first respondent alleging that said house is being used as a brothel house and thereby it is liable to be attached as provided under Section 18 of the Act. The first respondent passed final orders on 27-04-2010 directing the petitioner to vacate the residential house bearing No.23-6-62 within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The said order is assailed in this writ petition. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, on 26-05-2010 learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home took notice on behalf of respondents and sought time to file counter. 4. Subsequently, respondents filed counter. Sri Somepalli Venkata Subbaiah, Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur sworned to the affidavit and filed on behalf of first respondent. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that a show cause notice has been served on the petitioner but the petitioner has not offered any explanation to the show cause notice. Various other contentions have been raised in the counter and they are not required to be detailed in view of the order proposed to be passed. The only issue that arises for adjudication is whether the show cause notice dated 27-03-2010 has been served on the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has specifically averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the first respondent issued show cause notice dated 27-03-2010, calling upon her explanation within seven (7) days of receipt of the notice, why her residential house bearing No.23-6-62 at Yanamadurru drain bund, Bhimavaram town, should not be attached and thereupon she submitted explanation on 29-04-2010. Copy of the explanation sent by her has also been placed on record. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Home submits that show cause notice has been served on the petitioner on 06-04-2010 before passing final orders. 7. I have perused the Photostat copy of the show cause notice placed on record by the petitioner along with the material papers. The show cause notice does not indicate the date of service on the petitioner. Even the respondents in the counter-affidavit also has not specifically stated with regard to the date of service. 8. In that view of the matter, I find that the petitioner received show cause notice, as stated in her affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, on 24-04-2001. The time allotted to the petitioner for submitting explanation is seven (7) days from the date of receipt of a copy of notice. Even before expiry of 7 days, the first respondent proceeded to pass final orders on 27-04-2010. The first respondent has not allowed sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to submit explanation to the show cause notice. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the order 27-04-2010 passed by the 1st respondent. Since the petitioner has already submitted her explanation on 29-04-2010, the first respondent is directed to consider the explanation and pass orders afresh. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J July 12, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11923 of 2010 July 12, 2010