IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.22292 of 2005 Between: Midde Govindu S/o.M.Pedda Ramaiah R/o.Door No.2-10, Main Rao, (Nandyal to Banaganapalli) Nandavaram Village, Banagnapalli Mandal Kurnool District. ..... Petitioner AND 1 The Superintending Archeologist Archaeological Survey of Inida, Hyderabad Circle, Kendriya Sadan, III Floor Sultan bazar, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Kurnool Kurnool District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer Banagnapalli, Bnaganapalli Mandal, Kurnool District. 4 The Station House Officer, Nadivargam, Banaganapalli Mandal, Kurnool District. .....Respondents 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 a writ order or direction more particularly a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing a notice vide No.GPT/NDV-05/M.3463 dt.24.9.2005 to remove the existing building at Door No.2-10, Main Road (Nandyal to Bnaganaplli), Nandavaram Village, Bnaganapalli Mandal, Kurnool District and also notice issued by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Banaganapalli Mandal, Banaganapalli, Kurnool District dt.6.10.2005, since the petitioner is not an encroacher and residing in a building in the land for which patta was granted by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Banaganapalli Mandal, Banaganapalli, Kurnool district as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the lawful possession of the petitioners building and land in survey No.341 Dor N.2-10 Main Road (Nandyal to Banaganapalli) Nandavaram Villae, Banaganapalli Mandal, Kurnool District without following due process of law. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.DASARADHA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL) The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.22292 of 2005 ORDER: Petitioner is resident of Nandavaram Village of Banaganapalli Mandal in Kurnool District. He ﬁled instant writ petition challenging show cause notice dated 24.9.2005 issued by ﬁrst respondent under Rule 38 of Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Rules 1959 (the Rules, for brevity), as arbitrary and illegal. He also seeks further direction to respondents not to interfere with petitioner’s possession of building bearing Door No.2-10, Main Road, Nandavaram Village. Petitioner is a farmer. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer (MRO), Banaganapalli Mandal, assigned an extent of Acs.0.02 in survey No.341 situated at Nandavaram Village, to Dudekula Chinnakarrenna. Subsequently, on 07.3.1998, petitioner purchased the said site for a consideration of Rs.12,000/-. He renovated the house and commenced petty business in the name and style of M/s.Chowdaraiah Suppliers. The Central Government issued notiﬁcation No.1764, dated 16.6.1992, (published in Gazette dated 04.7.1992), declaring an extent of 200 Mtrs from protected monument, namely, Sri Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Nandavaram. In response to notiﬁcation, petitioner issued a legal notice dated 26.7.2004. Though there was no reply from ﬁrst respondent, he issued impugned notice dated 24.9.2005 directing petitioner to remove building, aggrieved by which present writ petition is filed. Petitioner alleges that impugned show cause notice is illegal and arbitrary. Indeed after receiving impugned show cause notice, petitioner submitted a reply. However respondents allegedly initiated action without due process of law necessitating filing of present writ petition. This Court, while admitting writ petition, on 14.10.2005, ordered status quo in W.P.M.P.No.28568 of 2005. Therefore, ﬁrst respondent has come forward with W.V.M.P.No.840 of 2006 seeking vacation of interim order. As the matter involves short point, the matter is heard finally and is being disposed of. After hearing learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Counsel for respondents, this Court is of considered opinion that writ petition is not maintainable. It is well settled that against show cause notice a writ petition would not lie. Petitioner has to approach the notice issuing authority for redressal of his grievance. ( s e e Special Director v Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse[1]). Therefore, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to express any opinion on the disputed questions of fact. Petitioner has already submitted explanation. Therefore ﬁrst respondent may consider the matter and pass appropriate orders before taking further steps in accordance with the Rules. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) September 08, 2008 YS 1 The Superintending Archeologist Archaeological Survey of Inida, Hyderabad Circle, Kendriya Sadan, III Floor Sultan bazar, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Kurnool Kurnool District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer Banagnapalli, Bnaganapalli Mandal, Kurnool District. 4 The Station House Officer, Nadivargam, Banaganapalli Mandal, Kurnool District. 5 Two CCs to the Assistant Solicitor General, Government of India, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT) 6 Two C.D. Copies. [1] (2004) 3 SCC 440