HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6464 OF 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to declare the notice, in B.A. No.90, 91 & 92/2009-G2, dated 02.03.2010 issued by the first respondent, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner claims to be the owner and to be in possession of land admeasuring 204.16 sq. yards in plot No.167 in Sy.No.155/A, D.No.43/133, E.C.M. Compound, 43rd Ward of Kurnool; with the intention to construct a Nursing Home he claims to have submitted an application dated 11.08.2009 to the respondent-Corporation, for building permission, duly paying necessary charges and enclosing necessary documents; and that building permission was accorded by proceedings in B.A.No.90/09/92 dated 26.08.2009. The petitioner would contend that the first respondent, by the impugned notice dated 02.03.2010, cancelled the earlier permission granted on 26.08.2009, on the ground that the City Planner, who had signed the plans submitted by him, was of unsound mind and had absconded from duty for the past five months. The petitioner’s grievance is that the impugned notice was issued without putting him on notice and without giving him an opportunity of being heard. Sri A. Sreedhar, Learned Standing Counsel for the Kurnool Municipal Corporation, on instructions, would submit that the City Planner had lost his mental equilibrium, had absconded from duties and, since the plans submitted by the petitioner were examined and signed by him based on which permission was granted, the respondent-Corporation considered it appropriate to cancel the permission granted earlier, more so since the fees prescribed was not paid by the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel would admit that the impugned proceedings (Notice) dated 02.03.2010 was neither preceded by a notice to the petitioner nor was he afforded an opportunity of being heard. The impugned notice in B.A. No.90, 91 & 92/2009-G2, dated 02.03.2010 is, accordingly, quashed. Needless to state that this order shall not preclude the first respondent from putting the petitioner on notice, giving him an opportunity of being heard and thereafter take action, for cancellation of the permission granted earlier, in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:06.04.2010 Usd