IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14400 of 2009 Between: M/s. Taraka Rama Grinder Rep. by its Proprietor, Maggam Shankar, S/o. Mallappa, H.No. 4-5-16, Amberpet, Nizamabad Town & District. .... PETITIONER AND 1 The Municipal Corporation of Nizamabad Rep. by its Commissioner, Nizamabad District. 2 Sri Nandala Kistaiah S/o. Laxmi Narasaiah R/o. D.No. 4-5-40, Amberpet, Nizamabad Town & District. ....RESPONDENTS 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 of Certiorari calling for the connected records, including the impugned notice No.F2/4748/2009, dated 14-7- 2009, issued by the 1st respondent, and quash the same as being arbitrary, illegal and unjust and pass such further or other orders as deems fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.K.RAMAMOHAN-MAHADEVA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.J.KANAKAIAH The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14400 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the Notice dated 14.7.2009 issued by the first respondent-Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Nizamabad, whereunder the petitioner was called upon to close his unit-M/s.Tarakarama Grinders, Nizamabad, forthwith alleging that the same is causing air pollution, is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent- Corporation. It is not in dispute that a show-cause notice was issued by the first respondent on 7.3.2009 to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation as to why his unit should not be closed on the ground of the alleged air pollution. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 16.3.2009 denying the allegations and further stating that he is holding a valid licence. It was also contended that the provisions under which the impugned notice was issued were not attracted, and therefore, the action proposed was unsustainable. However, without referring to the said explanation submitted by the petitioner, the impugned notice dated 14.7.2009 came to be issued directing the petitioner to close his unit forthwith. Hence the present writ petition contending inter alia that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The fact that the impugned notice dated 14.7.2009 was issued without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner is clear from a reading of the impugned notice itself. Hence the same being in violation of principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 14.7.2009 issued by the first respondent is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the first respondent-Corporation to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 16.3.2009. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ____________ G.ROHINI, J 21st July 2009 Note: Issue C.C in 2 days (B/o) RAR THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14400 of 2009 DATED : 21-07-2009