THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 14048 of 2011 Dated: 19.07.2011 Between: K.Laxminarayana, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND G.H.M.C., Hyderabad and another. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 14048 of 2011 O R D E R : The petitioner herein is in possession of premises bearing No.1-7-659/5/B, Ram Nagar, Hyderabad wherein he is running a fabrication unit. It is stated that he has been carrying on his business activities duly complying with all the statutory requirements. However, on 03.05.2011, the petitioner’s shop was sealed by the 2nd respondent and a closure notice dated 03.05.2011 was served upon him alleging that his activities in the premises in question had been causing air/sound pollution. It was also alleged that the petitioner was not possessing a valid trade licence as required under Section 521 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and that he was running the business in a residential building. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that in view of the complaints received from the residents of the locality, though the petitioner was orally requested to close the workshop, he refused to stop the welding and fabrication works and therefore, the premises was sealed on 03.05.2011. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. The specific case of the petitioner is that he is carrying on business in the premises in question under a valid licence granted by the Corporation. It is also stated that the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 16.05.2011 along with the relevant documents and requested the respondents to revoke the impugned closure order. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed and the premises in question was sealed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to make his representation against the proposed action. Be that as it may, since the petitioner is disputing the allegations made in the impugned notice and he has also submitted a detailed explanation with all the relevant documents, it is necessary for the respondents to consider the version of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The respondents are not justified in continuing the closure order without considering the petitioner’s explanation dated 16.05.2011. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner’s explanation dated 16.05.2011 as well as the documents produced by him and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three days from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 19.07.2011 Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow. B/o KLP