IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20323 of 2008 Between: K. Somraj S/o. K. Babu Rao R/o.8-2-601/G/18, Gouri Shankar Nagar, Road No.11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Assistant Director, Veterinary Section Central Zone Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. .....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 a Writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and quash the same by calling for the records related to notice dated 10.09.2008 bearing No.49/Vet/CZ/2008 by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and improper and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SHIVA SHANKER CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent: (SC FOR MCH CIRCLES 3&5)KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner is a lessee of the premises bearing house No.8-2- 601 G/18, Gowri Shankar Nagar, Road No.11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. He applied for grant of licence for running chicken and mutton shop in the leased premises. The Assistant Director, Veterinary Central Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation inspected the premises on 02.08.2008 and 12.08.2008. Permission sought for came to be rejected on the ground that the owner of the leased premises refused to give a rental deed. Consequently, on 10.09.2008 proceedings came to be issued by the Assistant Director of Veterinary Section, Central Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rejecting the application of the petitioner and directing him to close the chicken and mutton shop within a week. The said proceedings are under challenge in this writ petition. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation received notice on behalf of the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. There is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the owner of the premises and in the said civil dispute, the petitioner secured interim injunction against the owner of the premises. Thereupon, the owner of the premises ﬁled a suit being O.S.No.413 of 2007 for eviction and for mesne proﬁts. In view of the injunction granted by the civil court in favour of the petitioner, the ground on which the application of the petitioner is rejected by the respondent cannot be sustained. The fact remains that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the owner of the premises and there upon, the petitioner approached the civil court and secured interim injunction. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner explained these factual aspects of the matter to the respondent. In that view of the matter, the notice impugned in the writ petition be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner shall submit his explanation within two weeks from today and thereupon, the respondent shall consider the explanation and pass appropriate orders. Till the disposal of the proposed explanation, there shall not be any coercive action pursuant to the notice impugned in the writ petition. No order as to costs. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY J., Dt.17.09.2008 tjs ASSSTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to The Assistant Director, Veterinary Section Central Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2.2CD copies