HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26241 of 2010 Date 25.10.2010 Between: K.Gaffoor. ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District and others. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioner :Sri Gururaj Joshi Counsel for the Respondents :Assistant Government Pleader of Revenue HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26241 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the show cause notice No.626/2010 (B) dated 22.05.2010 issued by respondent No.3 and to declare the enquiry being conducted by him as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Gururaj Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner averred that he was assigned certain lands in Sy.Nos.94 and 161-1 of Anantapur Mandal in the years 1951 and 1952 respectively. Respondent No.3 issued notice dated 15.03.2010 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the assignment shall not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 01.04.2010. After issuance of notice, respondent No.3 appeared to have submitted a report dated 22.05.2010 to respondent No.2. On receipt of the said report, respondent No.2 issued notice dated 11.06.2010 fixing the hearing for 19.06.2010. According to the petitioner, the enquiry has been adjourned on the said date and that the same is not concluded as yet. The immediate cause for the petitioner to file the present Writ Petition is that respondent No.3 submitted his report to respondent No.2 behind his back and, therefore, the enquiry initiated on the basis of such a report cannot be sustained. I am unable to accept this plea as reinforced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. As respondent No.2 has proposed to hold an enquiry and issued notice dated 11.06.2010 for this purpose, the petitioner is entitled to participate in the said enquiry and raise all legally permissible objections to the notice dated 15.03.2010 of respondent No.3 as well as his report dated 22.05.2010. If such objections are raised, respondent No.2 is bound to consider the same and pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order to be passed by respondent No.2, he can avail the appropriate legal remedy. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the main petition, WPMP.No.33499 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:25.10.2010 usd