IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 10130 of 2004 Between: Vulli Veerabhadra Panduranga Rao, S/o. Late Veeraghuvulu, aged 72 years,Business,R/o. 12-2-31, Kobbirithota, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND Tadepalligudem Municipality, rep by its Commissoner, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. .....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 especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notices Roc.No. G1/709/2004 dated 7-6-2004 issued by the respondents in respect of the Door NO. 11-7-2 situated in Tadepalligudem Municipality, in Vijayalakshmi Pandit Road (Venkatarama Theatre Road), belong to the petitioner as being contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and pass For the Petitioner:MR.S.SUBBA REDDY,Advocate For the Respondent : MR.Dommalapati Srinivas, Standing Counsel for Municipalities The Court at the admission stage made the following Oral Order : W.P. No. 10130 of 2004 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Municipality. The only grievance of the petitioner, as submitted by his counsel and as projected in the writ petition, is that the respondent without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law, has passed the impugned order seeking to demolish the building, which according to him, is illegal and arbitrary. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Municipality on instructions submitted that the petitioner is constructing the building in deviation of the sanctioned plan, in that, they have not maintained the frontage as per the plan sanctioned by the respondent-Municipality, and therefore, the respondent- Municipality passed the impugned order seeking to demolish the portion of the building which was constructed by the petitioner in deviation of the sanctioned plan. The impugned order, admittedly is in the nature of final order, in that it seeks to demolish the building of the petitioner, and it is admitted to by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Municipality that no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner before the impugned order came to be passed. Inasmuch as the impugned order was not preceded by any notice to the petitioner, the same suffers from the vice of violation of principles of natural justice. Principles of natural justice demand that before any order adverse to a party is passed, he should be issued notice and provided an opportunity to put forth his version. Since the impugned order was not preceded with any notice, the same cannot be sustained. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. This order, however, does not preclude the respondent-Municipality from issuing notice to the petitioner and take appropriate action after considering the objections that may be filed by the petitioner. Unless and until the respondents issue notice to the petitioner and considers his objections and passes appropriate orders, he shall not resort to any demolition of the building of the petitioner. No costs. Date: June 21, 2004. KSR/RKK ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.The Commissioner, Tadepalligudem Municipality,Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 2.2CD copies