IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19731 OF 2009 Between: Syed Rahman Ali, S/o. Syed Ali and another ..... PETITIONERS AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Hyderabad and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19731 OF 2009 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the notice, dated 08.09.2009, issued in proceedings No.G1/3798/I/2009, whereby respondent No.2 – Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Nizamabad, while alleging that petitioners have unlawfully projected balcony, by encroaching the Municipal road and neighbours plot, at H.No.6-23-705, directed them to remove such encroachments within three days therefrom. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.3, who is their neighbour, has been constructing a house in an area of 80 square yards, by encroaching some portion of the PWD road and also by obstructing the windows of their house. It is their grievance that, representation dated 21.08.2009 made by petitioner No.2 in this regard before respondent No.2 – Municipal Corporation has not yet been considered and the impugned notice dated 08.09.2009 has been issued. 3. Respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit stating that the constructions made by him were in accordance with the sanction plan and there is no encroachment or deviation as alleged by the petitioners. 4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents – Municipal Corporation submits that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned notice, they can file their objections to the same, but without doing so, they have approached this Court directly. 5. There are allegations and counter allegations made by the petitioners and respondent No.3 herein with regard to the encroachment of the PWD road and also the constructions made by them in deviation to the sanction plan. A perusal of the notice dated 08.09.2009 issued by respondent No.2 in proceedings No.G1/3798/I/2009, to petitioner No.2 directing removal of encroachment, does not indicate issuance of any prior notice and opportunity to the petitioners. Whether the encroachment of the Government land is made either by the petitioners or respondent No.3 is also not examined by respondent No.2 before issuing the impugned notice. 6. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing respondent No.2 to treat the notice, dated 08.09.2009, issued in proceedings No.G1/3798/I/2009, as a show- cause notice and the petitioners are hereby permitted to file their objections thereto, within a period of four weeks from today. On filing such objections, respondent No.2 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon. Respondent No.2 is further directed to consider the representation dated 21.08.2009 made by petitioner No.2, with regard to the alleged encroachment of the PWD road by respondent No.3 and, if necessary, take necessary steps in accordance with law. 7. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 27th January, 2010. Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within four days B/O.MD