THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NOs.24316, 24321, 24322, 24331, 24338 and 24342 of 2006 DATED 24.11.2006 WP No.24316/2006 Between: M/s. Shiva Sai Polymers, Factory located at Borevanipalem, represented by its Proprietrix P.Saroja. .. PETITIONER Versus Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam and another. .. RESPONDENTS WP No.24321/2006 Between: M/s. Sree Lakshmi Plastics Industries, Factory located at D-27, Industrial Estate, represented by its Proprietor T.S.A.Murthy Reddy. .. PETITIONER Versus Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam and another. .. RESPONDENTS WP No.24322/2006 Between: M/s. Arunodaya Polyfilms, Factory located at Paradesipalem, represented by its Managing Partner A.P.Chitra. .. PETITIONER Versus Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam and another. .. RESPONDENTS WP No.24331/2006 Between: M/s. Chandana Plastics, Unit Located at D2 Block, ‘D’ Autonagar, Visakhapatnam, represented by its Proprietor A.S.N.Raju. .. PETITIONER Versus Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam and another. .. RESPONDENTS WP No.24338/2006 Between: M/s. Chaitanya Poly Pack Industries, Unit Located at D2 (A) Block, ‘D’ Autonagar, Visakhapatnam, represented by its Proprietor B.Rama Raju. .. PETITIONER Versus Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam and another. .. RESPONDENTS WP No.24342/2006 Between: M/s. Lunar Poly Packs, Unit Located at Plot No.77, Block ‘E’ Autonagar, Visakhapatnam, represented by its Proprietor K.P.R.V.Prasad Raju. .. PETITIONER Versus Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam and another. .. RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION NOs.24316, 24321, 24322, 24331, 24338 and 24342 of 2006 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri Simhadri, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners in all these Writ Petitions and Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. 2. These Writ Petitions are filed by the petitioners in this batch of Writ Petitions questioning the notices impugned in the respective Writ Petitions, whereunder straight away penalty of Rs.2,500/- had been imposed on the respective petitioners and further specifying that the Municipal Corporation is empowered to cancel the licenses. 3. It is stated that on the next day of the notices impugned, the petitioners made representations to the Commissioner, Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation. Several factual details are narrated in the respective affidavits filed in support of these Writ Petitions. 4. On a reading of the impugned orders, it is clear that no opportunity as such to the petitioners had been given before making these impugned orders in this batch of Writ Petitions. However, inasmuch it is stated that suitable explanations had been submitted in relation thereto the very next day by the respective writ petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that an opportunity to be given to the writ petitioners. In the light of the same, the impugned orders are hereby set aside. However, this may not come in the way of the respondents to issue fresh notices in accordance with law, if they require to do so. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are hereby allowed. No costs. ----------------------- - 24.11.2006 SSR