THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.23193 of 2011 Dated 17th August, 2011 Between: Shaik Abdul Rouf and another …Petitioners And The Commissioner, Nandyala Municipality, Nandyala, Kurnool District …Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Sri D.Bala Haze Counsel for respondent: Sri Sashidharan Nair For Sri Palle Nageswara Rao The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in proposing to demolish the petitioner’s huts bearing No.21/40/A of Balakonda Hall Street, Nandyal Town, Nandyal, Kurnool District, without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners claim that they have been residing in the two huts raised by them with common D.No.21/40/A for the last 50 years. When the respondent sought to interfere with the petitioners’ possession of the said huts, they have filed O.S.No.344 of 2001 in the Court of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal (Fast Track Court), for permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed restraining the respondent and its officials from removing the huts or interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners except by following due process of law. By the impugned notice issued under Sections 192 and 193 of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’), the respondent- Municipality called upon the petitioners to remove the huts within three days, failing which, the Municipality will remove the same. At the hearing, the only submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that his clients are poor and that if the huts are removed, they will suffer irreparable loss. A perusal of the impugned notice shows that the petitioners have encroached the road portion, thereby obstructing the pedestrians and the movement of the vehicles, apart from preventing removal of silt in the drainage channel. Under Sections 192 and 193 of the Act, the respondent has power and authority to remove such obstructions. Even in the decree passed by the civil Court as noted above, the respondent was permitted to take action for removal of the huts by following due process of law. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.28390 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th August, 2011 VGB