THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.24127 of 2008 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent-Corporation in issuing two licences, dated 13.10.2008, in favour of the second respondent to conduct and run chicken business in the subject premises, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the property bearing Door No.41-1/9-55, 4th Lane Gowtami Nagar, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada – 520 013, a residential locality. She states that one Smt.Venkata Subbamma is the owner of the house bearing Door No.41-1/8-1, which is on the western side of her house, and is unlawfully and illegally carrying on chicken business under the name and style of Sri Balaji Chicken Centre, causing lot of inconvenience to the petitioner as well as to the colony people. In spite of making repeated representations to the first respondent-Corporation, no action has been taken so far. Hence, the present writ petition. In response to the notice issued in this writ petition, the first respondent-Corporation filed a counter in the matter, wherein it is stated that Chicken Shop in a residential locality is permitted as per the Rules and the second respondent is running the chicken business by taking all precautions to avoid nuisance to the public. It is specifically stated that on verification, it is found that the petitioner is maintaining the chicken shop in hygienic conditions i.e., providing ceramic tiles to walls, proper cleaning facilities and maintaining separate closed bins for keeping refused chicken waste. It is further stated that the second respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.1208 of 2008 on the file of the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada against the husband of the petitioner and others, for permanent injunction and the same was decreed as prayed for. That against the said decree, the husband of the petitioner preferred an appeal in A.S.No.156 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada and the same is still pending. It is also stated that due to personal enmity with the second respondent, the petitioner is unnecessarily raising objections stating that running chicken shop in the subject premises endangers the health of the residents. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the second respondent. However, the learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the second respondent is running the chicken business in the subject premises in accordance with the Rules and maintaining the same in hygienic conditions, which was disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and having perused the material on record, without going into the merits of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent-Corporation to inspect the premises once again and ascertain whether the second respondent is maintaining and running the chicken shop, in hygienic conditions, in accordance with the Rules and in case, there are any violations, the first respondent is directed to take necessary action against the second respondent in accordance with law, after issuing notice. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:15.07.2010 VGB