THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.148 of 2011 JUDGMENT (per BPR,J): Heard both sides and at their request the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal. This writ appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 28.02.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3494 of 2011. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant/writ petitioner is carrying on the activity of manufacturing of sweets in the premises bearing No.1-8-536, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. On receiving a complaint from the local residents, the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation issued a show cause notice dated 04.03.2008, to which the appellant submitted its explanation on 19.04.2008 denying the allegations. Thereafter, the Corporation issued proceedings dated 09.07.2008 directing the appellant to close the establishment. Challenging the same, the appellant filed W.P.No.17319 of 2008, which was allowed by a Single Judge of this Court on 11.08.2010 directing the Corporation to cause a spot inspection of the premises in question in the presence of the appellant and the third respondent and take necessary steps, thereafter. In pursuance of the said order, the Corporation conducted spot inspection on 31.01.2011 in the presence of the appellant, local residents and the members of the third respondent, and through order dated 03.02.2011 cancelled the licence issued to the appellant and directed it to close the unit within two weeks. Questioning the same, the appellant filed W.P.No.3494 of 2011. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, and after going through the entire material available on record, dismissed the writ petition holding that the proceedings are going-on since 2008 and that the impugned proceedings are issued not only in the interest of the local residents but also for the users of the products. Hence, this writ appeal. The appellant challenged the proceedings dated 09.07.2008 issued by the Corporation in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.17319 of 2008, which was disposed of by this Court on 11.08.2010 with the following directions: (1) The respondents 1 to 3 shall cause spot inspection of the premises in question in the presence of both the petitioner and the 4th respondent herein within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. (2) In case any violations / contraventions which are likely to cause any kind of inconvenience to the residents of the locality on account of the activities of the petitioner in the premises are found, the respondents 1 to 3 shall take appropriate action in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain such violations / contraventions, if any. (3) Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of inspection of the premises in question. A perusal of the proceedings dated 03.02.2011 impugned in the writ petition would show that it is virtually a final order, which reads as under: “Having noticing and hearing both sides the License of the batty to manufacture Sweets and other eatables in the premises 1-8-536, Chikkadpalli is hereby withdrawn and cancelled immediately and the Balaji Mithai Bhandar Batty is hereby directed to close the Batty within two weeks from the receipt of this order otherwise the office shall take necessary steps for sealing the same.” The grievance of the appellant is that the said order dated 03.02.2011 has been passed without giving any notice and opportunity to the appellant and therefore, the same needs be set aside. Even though the proceedings dated 30.02.2011 have been initiated styling it as notice, virtually it is a final order and no opportunity was given to the appellant. Apart from conducting spot inspection, it is also contemplated on the Corporation that the appellant should be given an opportunity so that its case would be considered in proper perspective. In view of the same, without going into the merits and the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for both sides with regard to other aspects, we are of the view that the proceedings dated 03.02.2011 impugned in W.P.No.3494 of 2011 may be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner is directed to file explanation within three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on filing such explanation, the respondents are at liberty to pass fresh orders immediately thereafter. Subject to the above directions, the writ appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. B.PRAKASH RAO, J P. DURGA PRASAD, J Date: 16.03.2011 Note: Issue CC by tomorrow B/o. va