IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.6531 of 2009 Between: R.Sruthi. … Petitioner And: The Joint Collector, Vizianagaranm, Vizianagaram District and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Aravala Rama Rao. Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Agriculture. This Court made the following: ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare proceedings dated 3-1-2009 of respondent No.2 and the consequential notice dated ---/2/2010 of respondent No.1, as illegal and arbitrary; and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to run her business in Shop No.36 of R&B Guest House Rythu Bazar, Cantonment area, Vizianagaram. The petitioner, who is doing business in the said Shop, appeared to have had an altercation with respondent No.3-Estate Officer on 8-9-2008. As a consequence of the said altercation, respondent No.2 passed impugned order dated 3-1-2009, whereby the petitioner has been asked to shift her business from R&B Guest House Rythu Bazar to Ring Road Rythu Bazar. The petitioner questioned the said order, inter alia, on the ground that it was not preceded by any notice and opportunity of hearing to her. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is, inter alia, stated that the petitioner was never allotted Shop No.36 in R & B Guest House Rythu Bazar; and that, in any event, in view of the quarrel taken place on 8-9-2008 involving the petitioner with respondent No.3, the impugned order has been passed. The question whether the petitioner was officially allotted Shop No.36 or not does not arise for consideration in the present Writ Petition because that was not the ground on which the petitioner has been asked to shift to another Rythu Bazar. If the petitioner was not officially allotted the said Shop, the respondents shall be free to initiate appropriate action in that regard. But, the only reason on which the petitioner is shifted to another Rythu Bazar is that she had an altercation with respondent No.3. In my opinion, the mere fact of having altercation does not warrant the drastic action, as propped in the impugned order. Unless a proper enquiry is held by the competent authority and sufficient reasons are recorded for the authority coming to the conclusion that the measure of shifting to another Rythu Bazar is appropriate, the petitioner cannot be unceremoniously shifted from the existing Rythu Bazar to another Rythu Bazar. Admittedly, no opportunity has been given to the petitioner to put-forth her case before passing the impugned order. On this short ground, impugned order, dated 03-1-2009, cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. Consequently, show-cause notice, dated ---2-2009, issued by respondent No.1, as a consequence of the petitioner not complying with the direction of shifting, also cannot be sustained and the same is also set aside. This order, however, will not preclude respondent No.1 from initiating appropriate action, according to law, in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. ---------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:14-7-2010 MNR