HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.23013 of 2011 Date : 12-8-2011 Between : D. Pulla Rao and others .. Petitioners And The Guntur Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Guntur. .. Respondent Counsel for petitioner : Sri D.Hanumantha Rao Counsel for respondent : Sri G.Tuhin Kumar, Standing Counsel The court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside proceedings Roc.No.5288/09-G4, dated 8-8-2011 of the respondent whereby the petitioners were called upon to vacate the premises in question within a period of seven days. The petitioners are in possession of some shops in P.V.K. Naidu Market. When they were sought to be evicted on the ground that the said market building is in a dilapidated condition, the petitioners filed W.P.No.12678/2010 which was disposed of by this court by order dated 11-6-2010, permitting them to submit their objections to the respondent and with a further direction to the respondent to consider the objections of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Following the said order, the petitioners submitted their objections wherein they have requested the respondent to conduct the following tests: (1) Rebound Hammer Test; (2) UPV test; (3) Core Sampling Test; and (4) Load test regarding the structural stability. By the impugned order, the respondent has called upon the petitioners to vacate the premises within seven days. It is stated therein that accepting the petitioners’ request, the Principal, Siddardha Engineering College, Vijayawada was requested to conduct the tests and submit a report and that after conducting the tests the Principal of the said College has submitted the report stating that the condition of the building in P.V.K. Naidu Municipal Market complex seems to be dangerous and not suitable for adopting retrofitting techniques and advised to remove the entire structure. In this Writ Petition, this order is questioned mainly on the ground that the respondent has failed to give notice to the petitioners calling for their objections with reference to the report and that it has taken a unilateral decision on the basis of the purported report. After hearing Sri G.Tuhin Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, I am of the opinion that the respondent ought to have supplied a copy of the expert’s report to the petitioners and given them an opportunity of submitting their objections with reference thereto before accepting the said report. As the respondent failed to follow this procedure, the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside only on this short ground with the direction to the respondent to supply copies of the expert’s report to the petitioners. Within one week from the date of receipt of the said report, the petitioners shall file their objections, if any. After considering the objections, the respondent shall be free to pass an appropriate order. It is needless to observe that till this process is completed, the respondent shall not demolish the building in question. The Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, WPMP Nos.28158 and 28159 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 12-8-2011 AM