IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT APPEAL No.1208 of 2009 Between: Palaparthi Ramu and another. ...Appellants And The Greater Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Guntur and another. ...Respondents Counsel for the appellants : Sri V. Venkataramana Counsel for the respondents : Sri V.Ch. Naidu. The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, C.J.) 1) Being aggrieved by an order dated 11th September, 2009 passed in Writ Petition No.19300 of 2009, this appeal has been filed by the original petitioners. 2) The case of the appellants is that their premises has been locked by respondent No.2 without any authority of law. It has been submitted that no notice of whatsoever type was given to the appellants before the premises of the appellants had been sealed by respondent No.2. 3) It has been submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants that possibly because the appellants were running a lodge in the name and style of “Sai Teja Residency”, without any valid licence, the premises had been sealed. 4) The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has confirmed the fact that the premises of the appellants had been sealed because, without having necessary licence to run a lodge, the appellants had been doing the business of running the lodge named “Sai Teja Residency”. 5) The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has fairly submitted, in pursuance of instructions received from the appellants, that the appellants would not run the said lodge without obtaining necessary licence/permission from the respondents. 6) In view of the above submission made by the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants, the appellants are directed not to do the said business without obtaining necessary licence/permission from the respondents. 7) In view of the above direction to the appellants, the respondents are directed to open the lock so that the appellants can put the premises to other use which might be permissible in law. 8) The appeal stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 14th October, 2009 SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J. Note: Communicate the operative portion of the order by wire at the cost of the appellants. (BO) ARS