THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21658 of 2003 DATE: 15.10.2009 Between: G.Kanaka Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Tadepalligudem Municipality .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner :Ms.B.Deepthi FOR MR. V.S.N.SARMA The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to direct the respondent not to demolish further portion of the petitioner’s house bearing municipal door No.5-3-1 of Salipeta main road, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, by declaring proceedings, dated 09.10.2003 as illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and there is no representation for the respondent. In the impugned proceedings, it has been alleged that the petitioner converted the front side of his building into shop rooms/residential house opening directly on to the road resulting in unauthorized parking of vehicles by the persons using the said building. It is stated therein that maintaining of front open space is mandatory. Therefore, the respondent called upon the petitioner to provide the required set back to his building by maintaining front open space to a width 5”–0” within three days from the date of receipt of that notice. It is also stated that if the said direction is not complied with, the portion of the building constructed in violation of the front set back will be removed as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. At the hearing, Ms. Deepthi, learned counsel representing Sri V.S.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned proceedings are in violation of principles of natural justice, as the same is not preceded by a notice affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to explain his case. The learned counsel placed reliance on orders, dated 18.06.2004 and 14.06.1998 passed in Writ Petition Nos.10031 of 2004 and 9510 of 2004 respectively, wherein this Court set aside a similar notice and remitted the matter back to the respondent for issuing a notice before taking action. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent. Neither the impugned proceedings show that before the same was issued a notice was served on the petitioner nor any plea has been raised in this writ petition by the respondent to the above effect. Therefore, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside with liberty to the respondent to initiate fresh action by following the principles of natural justice. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th OCTOBER, 2009. kvni