IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 11021 of 2008 Between: Smt. Veeramachaneni Kankadurga W/o Venkateswra Rao R/o Paresepalli, Pamarru mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Gram panchayat Gannavaram, rep by its panchayat Secretary, Gannvaram Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT. Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the Respondent in issuing notice in R.O.C. No. 188/2008 dated 16-5-3008 directing the petitioner to demolish compound wall (6'x33) and steps with ramp to the panchayat road (3'x3') on northern side of the house of the petitioner bearing house Door No.2-19(New Door No. 2-24) situated in Gannavaram Village, and Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and offends Article 14 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequentially to set a side the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENUGOPALA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: MR.M.PRABHAKAR RAO The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.11021 of 2008 ORDER: Sri V.Venugopala Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner would state that the impugned notice, dated 16.05.2008 is, in fact, an order directing demolition of the construction made by the petitioner. Learned counsel would point out that, while the petitioner’s explanation was sought for by the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner herself was requested to demolish the construction and report compliance and was informed that if she failed to do so, action would be taken for demolition of the construction. While the last portion of the notice does give an impression that the respondents had directed the petitioner to demolish the property, the proceedings, when read in their entirety, would clearly show that it is only a show cause notice to which the petitioner was asked to submit her explanation. Sri V.Venugopala Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would submit her explanation to the show cause notice within one (1) week from today. Ends of justice would be met, if the respondent were directed not to take any further action regarding demolition of the construction till final orders are passed after receipt of the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the said orders are communicated to her. It is made clear that in case the petitioner does not submit her explanation within one (1) week from today, the respondent is free to take further action pursuant to the notice, dated 16.05.2008. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ____________ 22-05-2008 Note: issue c.c. in two(2) days. B/o Kvni/asp